This is a WARNING! Regardless of how much you have done or how good it sounded while you did it. A large portion of the information flying around the internet (especially within groups promoting patriotism and tax protesting) is false, baseless or worse. Therefore, the wise never believe anyone just because they sound good; instead, they learn the law and prove the facts confirming the truth with actual evidence. Respectively, we admonish our readers not to believe us, or anyone else, just because you see or hear something that sounds good. You need evidence; at least the quality necessary for production in court.
To reveal most of the mythology we simply follow the admonition from Foundational Law (the Bible), “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” KJV Bible, 2 Corinthians 13:1
With that admonition it would seem wise to do your own research, not trusting hearsay from any source. Let the two or three witnesses be factual records of law and history that are each verifiable by a variety of actual substantial sources; like: the laws themselves and actual verifiable historical records supporting the same. This is one of the reasons we always say: “Don’t believe us or anyone else on such matters. Do your own research and prove the truth for your self.”
We always feel such research is best done with the assistance of prayer made with a sincere heart and real intent asking our Father in Heaven for guidance to know the truth. Thus, to discern the truth we: First, pray for guidance; Second, study—when you hear something that sounds good, do your own research, repeat the research done by your source, get several actual source records of Law and History that confirm the accuracy of your opinions; Third, pray again asking if what you have discovered is not true. Only when you have so discovered and understand the truth for yourself by your own firsthand experience is it reasonable to take action.
Now on to revealing some the Mythology:
- The Strawman Myth.
- The myth alleging: “The Social Security number is your account number.”
- Myths regarding U.C.C. 1 filings.
- The Strawman Myth revisited, “I copyrighted my name”.
- Myths regarding Expatriation/Repatriation.
- The myths regarding ‘sovereignty’ that allege:
- Myths regarding the existence of, “Constitutional rights.”
- The myth alleging: “Having a Land Patent automatically voids mortgages and/or property taxes.”
- The myth alleging: “Land Patents no longer work.”
- The myth alleging: “You can Patent your Land.”
- The myth alleging: “The 50 star flag itself without the gold tassels, braids, or other attachments is the proper flag of our nation.”
- The myth alleging: “Signing an instrument “Without Prejudice” negates contractual liability.”
- The myth alleging: “The nation's name is the “united States of America” not “The United States of America.”
- The myth alleging: “You can rescind a Social Security number or other contract signatures.”
- The myth alleging: “The Second Amendment protects the personal right to keep and bear Arms.”
- The myth alleging: “The government is violating the Constitution by taking guns people carry in public.”
- The myth alleging: “The government is trying to eliminate gun ownership.”
- The myth alleging: “The State owns your car.”
- The myth alleging: “The Constitution is an unnamed document.”
- The myth regarding, “Debt Elimination.”
- The NESARA Myth.
- Combined myths regarding the nature of “our government”: When you click on Myth-22, it has Seven points of Prerequisite Knowledge that are elemental to understanding the Myth. Therefore, you first need to read each of those Seven points, in sequential order, to understand the myth!
- The myth that alleges, “The Articles of Confederation are still in full force and effect.”
- The combined myths regarding, “Tim Turner's claims about “The Peoples’ Republic”. Strangely enough, like the proverbial Pied Piper, this myth spread widely and warrants review as a word of warning!
Our purpose in presenting these myths with their resolutions is to give you a chance to step back and take a second look.
We have significant difficulties with the logic behind the Strawman theory and the respective Uniform Commercial Code filings. Not only do we not believe the feds created the alleged “Strawman”, but the Strawman theory is completely blown apart with simple logic. The theory simply does not fit the facts already known. What's worse, this theory sets its followers up for a gigantic fall.
Think about it, by definition a “Strawman” is: “a nonexistent person”.
The biggest problem with that is, if a person takes the argument to its logical conclusion in any reasonable application and someone challenges the argument (and they will), then the issue lands in court and you allege they created a “Strawman”. They contest your allegation saying, “we did not.” The result is, you have to prove the existence of a nonexistent person in order to win your argument, which is impossible—it is impossible to prove the existence of that which does not exist. The cause has already been challenged in the Supreme Court and that is exactly what happened, the case was determined to be frivolous, which it obviously is. Appeal records do not show such cases because frivolous case are not accepted for appeal, they are simply ruled, “frivolous”.
The foundational problem with the whole Strawman theology is that it is based upon the thesis that the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT is a government when in fact it is only a private foreign corporation (hereinafter “Corp. U.S.”). Within its own corporate purview, like in any corporation, it is a 'government', but outside of that purview it has no government authority whatsoever.
We have no idea where people get the idea that there is a retirement account, or retirement insurance in their name building up for their own retirement. Sure some people call it “the Social Security retirement program” or “retirement insurance” and the “I” in “FICA” stands for insurance, but the Social Security Act of 1935 describes no such account or retirement system. Said Act does describe the Social Security General Trust Fund, which is a fund dedicated to meeting the general expenses of the United States Government and it is kept together with all of the other general funds held by the United States Government. When people say, “We want to close out our social security accounts with a full refund.” There is no such account existent. To clarify funds deposited in the Social Security General Trust Fund are not refundable. Its accounts are depository in nature, meaning that they are collections at debt to the United States general depository funds (the person making such deposits has no right to them, whatsoever).
From all available evidences (which are significant), the relationship most people have with the Social Security Administration (hereinafter “SSA”) is that the SSA created a Trust at the person's request (i.e. Creator = SSA; Beneficiary = General Trust Fund; Trustee = the person for whom the application was made). As a matter of law the Trustee can never threaten the Beneficiary (i.e. the depository account in the Beneficiary's fund is not yours and it is not the Trust's and there is nothing there that will ever be “returned” to you under any condition).
Some people would allege the relationship shown here is either not a trust at all or is a “cestui que trust” in nature. To resolve forever such foolish allegations we respond with the following:
As to the allegation that the relationship is not a trust at all, we note that on application the SSA creates a name and account number then they send a social security card to the person for whom the application for the relationship was made. In the code it plainly states, ‘the card does not belong to the person'. This fact is made quite clear either with a statement on the back of the card, or in the documents that come with the card, or both. Now notice, if the card does not belong to you, it must belong to someone; and if it belongs to someone it must have value; further the card is held by the person that it was sent to; as a matter of law it cannot be used, or be compelled to be used, as identification; further, the person the card was sent to is the only person that has ever had any authority to use the name and number on that card for the purposes of transacting any business relationship of any kind. Now we ask you, “What is the nature of the relationship we just described here?” Remember, the definition of a trust is any situation where one person is in control of, or holds, a thing for, or in the benefit of, another person. Is that not exactly the situation described by the factual relationship demonstrated by the SSA when they send that card out and request the person that receives it to hold it in recognition of their capacity in relationship the SSA created on application? The answer is undeniably, “Yes!” We rest the case of the nature of that relationship and any contest to the same—it is a Trust.
Now we address that allegation that said application for a relationship with the SSA creates a “cestui que trust”. In this allegation it is important to notice that its promoters would have you believe that you are the person related to in the “cestui que” nature of the trust. So let's first discover the plain English definition of “cestui que trust”; it is an Anglo~French phrase, literally meaning: “he for whom (the) trust (is held)”. In other words, it means the Beneficiary of a trust. Now, return to the last paragraph, and notice what your capacity would be in relation to any such trust. Are you the one that controls its activities (employment, bank accounts, etc.), or are you the Beneficiary? The answer is quite simple and was already related in the last paragraph. Your capacity is the one that holds the card, the Trustee, not the Beneficiary. Further, every court case that has ever gone before the United States Supreme Court attempting to compel forth the person’s interest in “their Social Security funds” that have accumulated in their interest has come down with the same ruling, there are no such funds—the program is not a retirement program, it is not an insurance program, there are no funds held secured for them of any relation to their participation in the Social Security program. Therefore, we rest the allegation that you are the subject of some “cestui que trust” relationship as the Beneficiary of such a trust, there is a “cestui que trust” relationship as there is in any trust—that is, all trusts have a Beneficiary; in this case the Beneficiary is the United States government's General Trust Fund, not you.
If people are looking for a tax refund, by challenging the Social Security program, they are barking up the wrong tree in this relationship; it is unlawful for the Trustee to threaten the Beneficiary in any Trust. The way to get IRS collected tax refunds is to file IRS returns in accord with IRS regulations, using the proper Office of Management and Budget authorized IRS forms.
First, please note, the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) has absolutely no application in any federal venue. It was crafted by Corp. US and suggested to the corporate states as a system the corp. states could use to unify their state's commercial codes and relations with other such corp. states. The corp. states accordingly adopted it almost universally; still, it is not related to the feds at all.
The “U.C.C. 1 Form” filing process is legitimately used by creditors to secure the validity of beginning collection actions against debtors in the corp. states; however, predatory marketers try to sell people on the idea that the form can be used to become a “Secured party creditor”.
The “Secured party creditor” and “Secured party status” are marketing terms strawman theologians and predatory marketers use to convince people that they should use the Corp. State’s U.C.C. 1 Form to establish their “Secured party status”; however, the U.C.C. 1 Form cannot "establish" such a status because the credibility of a debt is based upon the actual terms and conditions of an actual debt owed to the creditor not by the U.C.C. 1 Form.
Such marketers and theologians allege such a debt is owed to the natural man because Corp. U.S. allegedly created the Strawman then borrowed against it.
To debunk this myth, first go back and review Myth 1 then notice, the Strawman does not exist; therefore, the myth is busted! If the so-called strawman’s existence cannot be proven, then it will be very difficult to prove any such debt. Let’s also consider the alleged debt they propose to use the U.C.C. 1 Form for. They allege that because corp. U.S. created a debt against the people, they borrowed those funds from you. However, that is not the nature of Corp. U.S.' debts. If you were truly the creditor then they would not be trying to collect funds through taxation to pay such debts. The more correct allegation would be Corp. U.S. collateralized their debts with your willingness to pay the same; which would make you the debtor, not the creditor. Thus, if their was a proper application for the use of the U.C.C. 1 Form in that relationship it would be against the people not by them.
However, let’s follow the myth a bit further so you can understand the gravity of its pursuit. This whole argument was created because the strawman theologians could not prove their specious theory; so, they invented this ruse as a method of ‘generating evidence’ to prove their specious allegations.
The problem with the concept of creating evidence using the U.C.C. 1 Form constitutes fraud if the liability alleged in the Form does not exist. Now, that should be an eye opener, considering the fact that felony mail fraud involving a federal agency carries a penalty of 30 years in jail and a one million dollar fine per violation. That means each piece of mail used in the process of attempting to indicate such an obligation against a federal agency could land you in jail for 30 years and cost you $1,000,000.00.
Quite frankly, that is enough of a threat to cause most thinking people to rethink such a foolhardy plan (just because some guy sounded good in a seminar).
The cold hard fact remains; by definition, the alleged strawman does not exist; and therefore, cannot be proven to exist—by definition the term “Strawman” means a non-existent person. Thus, it will also be impossible to prove the existence of a debt against such a non-existent person.
But, the foolishness does not end there, the allegation is the feds created the Strawman therefore the reality of that allegation can only be adjudicated with any validity in a federal court venue and the U.C.C. has no applicability in the federal venue so you would actually have to prove the non-existent debt in a federal court to establish the claim made in the U.C.C. 1 Form filing.
However, the paperwork required to establish the alleged debt in a state venue, according to U.C.C. requirements, would be a notice and demand made directly to the debtor; and, due to the alleged debtor’s federal nature, and the bogus nature of the claim, there would be no lawful obligation on the debtor to reply. If you were to attempt to compel the matter in federal court (the only venue that could hear the case) they would certainly consider the case frivolous; but, they would hit you up for the attorney fees and respective court costs for wasting the court’s time; and, the Attorney General’s review of the case preparatory to responding to it would likely spark their prosecution on the mail fraud.
If you want to know more about this topic checkout our forum article, “Freedom Documents”.
When the Strawman theologians could not prove their specious theory and the attempt to prove their U.C.C. process was less than successful or to enhance what little success they believed they might have, they decided that they could secure their beliefs by simply copyrighting their names. Then logically they could hold Corp. U.S. and the Corp. States accountable for copyright violation if their copyrighted name was misused, Right?
Wrong! Again, it is helpful to know the law. In fact, copyright law does not work that way. Even book publishers and Hollywood producers with “All Rights Reserved” in their copyrights cannot copyright the title to a book or a movie. Two of the movies I have on my shelf are both titled, “The Patriot”: one stars Steven Segal where he is a modern doctor fighting to save the people from a deadly virus that was turned loose by a maniacal self proclaimed patriot; the other movie stars Mel Gibson, who plays the part of a Revolutionary War patriot fighting the British. Also, several of my books have the exact same title, with entirely different: authors, publishers and content; all copyrighted, with “All Rights Reserved”, and none of them having permission from the others to use the title (nor do they need such, copyright law does not protect titles).
Even without knowing the law this myth is debunked with simple logic:
Think about it; how many people are there in the world with the name, “John Smith”? If a person was to formally copyright their name, “John Smith”, would that mean that no other person that already had the same name, with that same spelling, could ever use their name again? Obviously not. It would have no effect on anyone that already had the name, whether that other person was a natural person or a business entity. So would that copyright keep any father out there of the name, “John Smith” from naming his newborn son, “John Smith”? No, it would not. So what effect would it have if a person was to copyright their name? It would have absolutely no effect at all (copyright law does not protect names or titles).
There is a real danger though in copyrighting ones name if a person then attempts to use that copyrighted name to secure any right, property or privilege from any other person (real or business entity). That danger is the charge of identity theft. We have already been appraised of governance entities prosecuting people for felony identity theft in relation to this very myth.
If you fell for it in the past, your simplest remedy might be to simply not attempt to enforce the alleged copyrighted name.
When the reigning Mythologists couldn’t prove their specious U.C.C. allegations they were completely frustrated and they came up with this one. It is the crown jewel of all Patriot Mythology. Nothing the feds could have ever done could top this one because, following through with this argument successfully labels an honorable yet ignorant American as a recognized foreign minded terrorist and threat to society. That is why after a person falls for this gag their only apparent remedy to get our country back is through armed rebellion; which today is a fools move that falls directly into the Corp. U.S. trap.
The King of Kings is quoted, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee…seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.”
To understand this one, a little history is in order; under Lincoln's Martial Law (still in force today), in accord with, The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, the private corporation known as, “The United States Government” (herein “Corp. U.S.”) was legally and lawfully formed and charged with the responsibility of carrying out the business needs of the nation (The United States of America), which lawfully set said corporation in charge of passport relations; Corp. U.S.’s State Department handles such relations and recognizes that if a person attempts to expatriate from the country without leaving it they are committing fraud.
The word, “expatriate” means to voluntarily abandon or renounce one's country and become the citizen or subject of another.
Where it is easily proven that the United States Government is a private foreign corporation, why would anyone ever attempt to “expatriate” from it? Corp. U.S. is not a country.
Patriation is something that is done with countries, nations and Kingdoms, how could you ever possibly expatriate from a private foreign corporation? You can't—it's impossible.
It is not legally or lawfully possible to expatriate from one's country and not leave it, unless the person is either held in prison or is a foreign enemy (enemy, because he is not following the resident law). Further, if a person wanted to expatriate from a country, why would they file their documentation for the process with a private foreign corporation?
Finally, if a person never expatriated from their nation there is no cause to repatriate to it. Patriation to the United States of America is a very specific process which can only be done in accord with very specific guidelines under the auspices of Corp. U.S. as per its assignment of carrying out the business needs of the United States of America under martial law.
The Bottom Line, the alleged “Expatriation/Repatriation process”, simply makes no sense; it is a sham some people profit off from by selling their wares to the ignorant. The result of pursuit of such would have no lawful effect, yet it could cause anyone that might have had some influential ability to control Corp. U.S. to be an impotent bystander that has openly recognized the United States Government as a "government" they were once a “citizen” of and now they do not believe they are a part of it, in spite of its private foreign corporate nature—either way their actions prove fraud. More dangerously, under the conditions of the day, with the Corp. U.S.’S' war on terrorism, those so ignorant to fall prey to this Myth are recognized as people that feel like they are foreign to the United States and yet they will not leave but instead they feel it necessary to arm themselves and rebel against the Corp. U.S., which is recognized as a act of terror, therefore, under The Patriot Act, they are held to the same standard as any terrorist and they may be arrested at any time and held without cause for up to 7 days, when they may be charged and held indefinitely without trial, bail or right to habeas corpus; under The Homeland Security Act, federal Homeland Security Police (Hitler called them the “SS”) can go anywhere to seize them recognizing such people as wartime enemies of the State having no rights whatsoever.
Again, this is one of the deadliest Patriot Myths of all; its only remedy is repentance.
Sovereignty comes from God. God created mankind in His own image and gave man dominion, agency and possession, which are the three elements that together define “Sovereignty”. What God created no man can remove. Therefore, as it is with all mankind, your sovereign nature exists and you are responsible for it.
You cannot contract it away or otherwise dismiss your personal responsibility to your sovereignty. When you enter into a contract your sovereignty is not bound; quite the contrary, it is the fact that you are sovereign that gives you the ability to bind contracts. In other words, if you were not sovereign you could not enter into a contract.
Sovereignty, even as mankind received the same from God, is the ultimate source of all political power. Accordingly, as people gather together, they form governments by entrusting the authority to administrate a portion of their respective individual sovereignty with the so formed government so that it can use the collective sovereignty to function. Of course, that entrusting action removes neither the individual’s accountability (to God) for that administrative use of sovereign authority nor their responsibility to make sure the government adminstrates that sovereignty authority lawfully and correctly. Each of the people remains personally responsible for their sovereignty, and accordingly, for their government’s administration of the same. That is to say, the people remain responsible for their government’s administration of the power the people granted government.
To further address this very matter we point to Osborn v. The Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 738; 9 Wheat 738, wherein the nation’s Supreme Court ruled it is impossible to pass political power through a contract.
The bottom line: the only way anyone can possibly lose their sovereign nature is, God could take it from them and that will not happen in this lifetime; in fact, if you follow the Law of God that will never happen.
Accordingly, it is impossible for anyone to give up their sovereignty.
You can find more on this topic on Team Law’s Forum.
From time to time you will hear about the Tax Protestor, Patriot, student of law or other sympathetic person that has realized we are all sovereign by birth. Respectively (having noticed that their natural rights are not being honored too much today), when they discover that the thing they had thought of as their government (Corp. U.S.) is, in fact, not actually a government at all; but is instead, a private foreign controlled corporation (with its own myths), they tend to start putting two and two together to understand something is far more wrong than they had at first expected. Of course, that is when the wild eyed theories start fomenting forth from virtually every source anyone can imagine.
Thus, as some of those people realize their actual natural sovereign nature has not (and, in accord with Myth 6, cannot change or be) changed they recognize that they are still sovereign; which discovery warrants that they begin to act the part. Therefore, they begin to contest the actions of Corp. U.S. (or the corporate State) as if they (the individual) were bringing such contests from their respective sovereign capacity (that is to say: as if they were standing separately in their sovereign capacity challenging the cause of such contest).
Though such allegations are next to impossible to prove, given the fact that the court’s authority to hear any action comes from the respective federal or state constitutions, those allegations are easy to prove false—because each of the individually sovereign people granted the government the responsibility of administrating a portion of their sovereignty to collectively administrate the functions of government; one of which functions is the authority to manage and administrate the courts. Thus, in bringing forth such a contest automatically shows the element of sovereignty you claim is indistinguishable from the sovereignty administered by the government against which you raise your claim of your jurisdictional challenge. Respectively, you cannot sue yourself; so your claim not only fails to state a claim uopn which relief can be granted it is also political in nature and therefore stands outside the courts juristic abilities. The Bottom Line: that motion will always fail if the court at all follows the law.
Of course on that very cause, we did see an action in Minnesota where the court alleged that its authority to bring the action against the Defendant was made by the Plaintiff acting for the peace and dignity of the people of the State of Minnesota; to which the Defendant moved for a dismissal based upon the fact that he was one of the People of Minnesota and he disagreed; respectively he alleged that the State could not lawfully bring an action against him using his own authority as one of the people—respectively the court correctly dismissed the case. In this case the man stood in his natural capacity lawfully challenging that the court could not act using his own authority against himand against his will. The court simply recognized that in law, no person can lawfully bring an action against his or her self—even through such an administrative authority.
There is no such thing as, “constitutional rights”. The Constitution grants no rights. Our Rights do not come from the Constitution; rather, the Constitution recognizes our Rights are God given and inherent. Crafting a Constitution does not change the fact that people cannot create rights or give rights they do not possess to others. Further, the Constitution does not, and cannot be lawfully amended to, limit the sovereign people of the United States of America. The Constitution for the United States of America is the document the people used to create their government. It is a Trust Indenture, wherein the delegates of the college, with the creative authority from the People, formed the Indentured Trust called “government”, wherein the officers of said government are collectively assigned with “Trustee” capacities (each limited by the duties of their respective offices) and the People remain the beneficiaries. The Bill of Rights was attached to “The Constitution for the United States of America” to form the contract known as, “The Constitution of the United States of America”, which binds government officials to the limited operations of government as specified in the contract (and that which follows); and so, limits said government officials from violating the God given inherent rights of the people. These constitutions neither prescribe nor claim to prescribe any rights to anyone. Instead they grant privileges to officers of government and restrict those officers from any action that would violate The Constitution of the United States of America. Our Constitutional Republic government, only governs itself as it is limited by its Constitution and Law; it has no authority to control the sovereign people of this nation; the people govern themselves. Again, the Constitution grants no rights; our Rights are God given, inherent and unalienable.
Therefore, though virtually all of the rights of the people, in the United States of America, are constitutionally secured, there is no such thing as a “Constitutional Right”. The use of that term is inspired by the Global Elite to presuppose the government has authority to control (govern) the people; even though nothing in the Constitution ever provided such authority to the government so formed. When understood and applied, the Constitution actually limitsd the government from ever controlling the people. See: Yick Wo vs. Hopkins.
This myth is simply baseless and false.
Though the Land Patent is the actual Title to the Land, Mortgages and property taxes are both the result of subsequent private contracts; and, because land patents have nothing to do with a person’s right to enter such subsequent contracts, the Land Patent can have virtually no effect against subsequent mortgages and or property taxes.
Though the Land Patent can protect the Land from being taken, there is nothing automatic about it. One must understand what Land is (as in the “domain”) and what appurtenances to Land are (as in “property appurtenant” to land) to understand how a Land Patent secures the Land. Though Team Law has the resources to help its beneficiaries learn how to learn the full nature of such relationships, the simplicity of Land Patent secured rights vs. the complexity of rights related to conventional real estate transactions limits us from making those resources available to anyone other than Team Law beneficiaries. Thus, to help everyone out with a leg up on understanding such matters Team Law provided its Land 101 article.
Land Patents generally secure two separate kinds of rights: permanent hereditary Land rights and respective rights to the property appurtenant to the Land. Patent secured hereditary land rights are the rights over the Domain of the Land; which Domain is defined by the two dimensional planar border of the Land having its third dimension defined as: ‘extending from the center of the earth to the heavens above.’ Though the patent describes, and respectively protects the rights to the property appurtenant to the Land as well, the patent does not limit you from selling or otherwise contractually encumbering such property so protected. Thus, though the property appurtenant to the land is so protected that protection does not limit you from separately selling things like: crops, dirt, shrubs, trees, buildings, water, and/or any other private property contained within the domain of the Land
The Land Patent expressly grants these patent secured rights to the named patent recipient and to their heirs and assigns, forever. That means that both the Land and the property sitting within the borders of the Land is Land Patent secured to the lawful patent holder. Accordingly, if one receives assignment to such Land through a Deed, by the Land Patent's definition that assigned ownership was already defined on the Land Patent from the time the Land was initially granted; and so, made Patent. That is why, in the United States of America, Land Patent secured Land is always granted and never sold. Thus, the Land (domain) itself has no monetary cost and cannot be bought sold or traded. So, what is it that one pays for when one acquires land via purchase? They pay for the property appurtenant to the land. You see, even though the property appurtenant to the Land is also mentioned in the Land Patent, it is removable from the land and therefore has a specific value separate from the Land; therefore, it is separately marketable for a price (contractible).
Again, the Land Patent does not limit your ability to contract. Wherefore, one can contract to pay a mortgage or a tax related to such appurtenant property even if there is no conveyance off from the Land unless or until a default to the contracts payment plan occurs, at which time if the contracting party fails to perform in concert with the terms and conditions of the contract the other party can sue for foreclosure of the contract and so secure the property rights according to the term and conditions of the contract. That type of action can only secure the property appurtenant to the Land; it cannot secure assignment to the land itselfthus, a cloud sets upon the Title and a person that understands and manages land rights properly may be able to otherwise preserve those interests with a controlling effect on the land.
Mortgage elimination programs, for the most part, are ways to attempt to defeat a contract in a manner contrary to its terms and conditions, which the parties agreed to from the onset. However, most such agreements are otherwise controlled by both federal and local State statutory standards. Therefore, if there is ever a cause for contesting such agreements, those statutory controls are a good place to start studying to support your action.
If the obligee to a mortgage or a property related tax obligation fails to perform according to the terms of the contract, fraud charges may be brought against them, which charges could prevail in a court contest to prove that the fraudulent party acquired their assignment to the Land (and its Land Patent) by fraud, in which case, the Land would be lost including the assignment to the Land Patent secured rights. End of story.
Land patents best secure land and its related appurtenant property when the land is kept free of mortgages and property taxing contracts. In all cases property protection is best secured by arranging a competent asset protection system to work in concert with your land patents. We prefer the services of The Way of Kings" for all such solutions.
The bottom line is: if the car becomes too expensive to afford, you timely get one you can afford to maximize your current equity position and eliminate the expenseThis principle applies to houses etc.; it is generally called economizing. Though a man might be able to prevail in a mortgage elimination program, if doing so makes him violate his word, his honor, his trustworthiness the price is too great for his soul, which is far more important. In life, sometimes circumstances can knock us downthe secret is: get back up and do it honorably. The sad news today is, that seems to be a secret.
You can find more on this topic on Team Law’s “Land Patents” Forum.
This myth only fools the fool that refuses to read the Land Patent and study the relevant Law, which states that the Land Patent stands as supremacy law in every State. The Land Patent itself stands a contract between the King, Governor or President of the United States of America and the party named in the Land Patent. According to its own terms it lasts forever, and that time has not yet come, therefore as a matter of Law, the Land Patent is still valid, it still works and it will continue to work so long as those assigned to it know how to put it to work protecting their Land.
Again, this Myth is blown away by simply reading the Land Patent itself and then reading the rest of the documents in the chain of assignment (Title Abstract). This is one of the reasons that title companies and banks today push title insurance and do not want people to get abstracts. If those documents are not enough to convince you then the case law supporting land patents is quite extensive and it all supports the land patent.
You can find more on this topic on Team Law’s Forum.
This matter goes a bit deeper and here we will only scratch the surface. To fully understand this matter you have to understand acts of war, Corp. US and its limited responsibilities, conflicts in law and its private foreign owner, along with what the right to Patent is.
Limitedly, for a Land Patent to have validity it must be originated at the national level according to relevant Law. Where the people are individually sovereign and can issue their own Land Patents with regard to Land rightfully secured to them; the jurisdiction of such a patents enforceability would extend to them only, it would have no relation to the State or to the nation. Therefore, it would have no enforceability outside the individual capacity of the sovereign that issued it; further, any enforcement actions would constitute an act of war. Likewise, a person having no rightful assignment to Land cannot issue a Land Patent without committing an act of war. Corp. U.S. cannot issue a valid Land Patent today and it has not been able to do so since the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1944 because of its foreign owner which creates a conflict of interest, which negates the validity of any Land Patent.
You can find more on this topic on Team Law’s Forum.
The 50 star flag itself without the gold tassels, braids or other attachments is the proper flag of our nation
The fifty star flag was introduced by Corp. U.S. as the flag of the nation in the 1950s to recognize the entry of private corporations known as THE STATE OF ALASKA and THE STATE OF HAWAII into the corporate union (Corp. US) of STATE OF 'X' corporations. It could not have been issued as a result of the Alaska and Hawaii Territories entering the Union of States of the United States of America because from the 1944 Bretton Woods Agreement forward Corp. U.S. was privately owned by a foreign power with a conflict of interest limiting it from issuing an Enabling Act that could allow a State to form.
Further, there was no President of the United States of America then seated in the original jurisdiction government seat, whose signature is necessary to sign any valid Enabling Act for those territories to become such States.
Further, there was no original jurisdiction national Congress seated at that time to generate such necessary Enabling Acts.
Therefore, there are to this day only 48 States in the Union of States of the United States of America and the proper flag of our nation has only 48 stars on its jack.
The 50 star flag is the proper flag of the President of Corp. U.S. and is properly used in his capacity as the Commander in Chief of the military forces of the United States of America, which are an original jurisdiction government body but they stand today under the assignment of Lincoln's martial law as the enforcers of that martial law, whose business needs are dictatorially controlled by Corp. U.S.’ President.
In reality, when you sign an instrument (contract, etc.) with the statement: “Without Prejudice”, all you accomplish is reserving that which is not self-evident in the written words of the instrument.
To sign an instrument: “without prejudice”, while maintaining the intent of so negating your contractual liability is to commit fraud or at the very least the appearance of fraud.
This should be easy for anyone to see; because, if the other parties to such an instrument act in accord with that which appears to be your agreement to all of that which is: “self-evident in the written words of the instrument” and they are injured by your failure to hold up your end of the agreement, etc., that injury will have been caused by your failure to honor that which appeared to be your signed word.
This has been consistently well ruled by the courts and is, therefore, well established in common/case law.
(This one is best viewed in full screen mode)
People that have been romanced with patriot mythology often spell the nation’s name with a lower case “u“ in “united States of America”. This comes from the fact that the promoters of this myth are allegedly looking for solutions to what is going wrong in our nation and when they read the Declaration of Independence they read its title,
Obviously, the “u” in united is not capitalized.
They also note from the last paragraph of the Declaration, “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America,”
Again, the “u” in united is spelled in lower case. Thus the myth.
To solve this myth we only need to go to simple English grammar. Though titles cannot be used to define meaning, this title was plainly written as a self defining statement.
Let’s dissect its meaning:
First note that the Great emphasis was shown with large bold letters on the words, The unanimous Declaration, and, States of America,
while its authors minimized by comparison the words, “of the thirteen united”.
Note also that the function of each word is as follows: “the” is an article (the first one is capitalized because it was the first word in the title), all of the other words with capital letters are Proper nouns, “unanimous”, “thirteen” and “united” are all adjectives and “of” is a preposition.
Further, in the last paragraph of the Declaration we note that the language pattern remains the same as in the title:
Yet, they use another device to clarify their meaning using the same calligraphic writing style on “We, therefore,…united States of America”, emphasizing their meaning. The most unique grammatical usage here is the word, “Assembled”, which would be a past tense verb but they capitalized it, changing it to proper noun usage (a nominalized verb). This usage implies that there is a proper noun nature to their Assembly (a finite person, place or thing able to function of its own authority). They plainly stated they were assembled for the causes shown in the Declaration to that point, by and through their Representatives (proper noun usage—capitalization shows each Representative has the State’s sovereign authority to act) in General Congress, Assembled (proper noun usage—capitalization) these States united with one voice on the American continent, telling King George go home, your contracts are negated by your bad acts. Notice also, they are assembled in this General Congress, which implies they are normally separate sovereign States, for this purpose assembled, and that they intend to formally assemble as one nation through their efforts. In other words, a single nation had not yet formally been formed with any formal written constitution styled as: The United States of America; yet these separate States are united in their support of this Declaration of Independence.
Now historically notice, as is evidenced in the Declaration, that these 13 separate States came together, not as colonial parts of Great Britain but as independent sovereign States united for a cause.
Can the usage in the Declaration of the term “united States of America” be properly or reasonably interpreted as the name of the nation?
Absolutely not. That is an impossible interpretation considering History, considering the English language and considering the document itself.
Think about it.
How could it possibly be the name of the nation itself when the title states that there are 13 voices speaking with one voice through this Declaration.
How could it possibly be the name of the nation when the English language requires, Proper nouns (like national names) are spelled with initial Capital letters.
How could it possibly be the name of the nation when those 13 separate States first documented their national formation under their Articles of Confederation, which was not formed until 16 months later on, November 15, 1777.
It therefore cannot be the name of the nation.
Even if you look as Thomas Jefferson's rough drafts you will see that he did not use the above grammatical style in vain and in his mind and heart the name of the Nation was already cast as, “The United States of America”. The following is a copy of Thomas Jefferson's rough draft title to what became the Declaration of Independence:
The following is a copy of Thomas Jefferson's rough draft of the beginning of the last paragraph of what became the Declaration of Independence:
Finally, the name of the Union of these 13 distinctly separate States was formally resolved and documented in law in Article 1 of said Articles of Confederation:
“ARTICLE I. The stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America."”
Thus, as a matter of law, the name our Union could not possibly be more clear; it is:
The United States of America.
We certainly hope this helps you understand the truth about the name of our country. Still, most myths are based on a truth. The part of this myth that is true is the part where those following this myth understand something is wrong; though the thing that is wrong is not the spelling of the name of our nation; rather, it is the entity people today perceive as government was created in 1871; not on, November 15, 1777. Thus, it is not the government as it was organized in our national Constitution. That entity, so created in 1871, is in fact a private foreign corporation as was shown above.
It is impossible for you to “rescind” ‘your’ “Social Security number”.
First of all, as described above in Myth 2, the “Social Security number” is not “yours” so you cannot rescind it.
Second, involvement with Social Security Administration, in most cases, is contract based. The purpose of forming a contract between two or more parties is to bind the parties related to it to the contract to the terms and conditions of the contract. If I was a farmer contracting for harvesting of my crops, I would first find an available harvester and contract with them to timely harvest my crops. The contract would include a limitation that the harvester needs a months notice if I want to cancel the harvest for any reason. So now it comes to two weeks before the harvest and my crops are destroyed by a hail storm but I have no act of God clause in the contract. What happens when I tell the harvester not to come. He says that he will try to sell the time to someone else but that if he cannot he will still have to bill me for the harvest because I am not canceling before the one month deadline. I rescind my signature from the contract and refuse to pay.
What happens when the harvester takes me to court for specific performance on the harvest contract. The harvester presents the contract to allow it to speak for itself. Then he presents my affidavit of rescinded signature to prove that I believed that my signature existed on the contract or I would not have attempted to rescind it. The court rules in favor of the Contract for the following causes: the proof of my intention to be bound (signature) to the contract was proven by my attempt to rescind my signature; I knew the risks of potential acts of God that could destroy my crops yet I knowingly and willingly entered into the contract without an act of God exclusion; the contract's terms speak for them selves. Nothing I could say or do would free me from the terms shown here. The contract is valid and must be paid.
This little fictitious scenario is exemplary of any contractual obligation situation wherein a person attempts to rescind their signature. In the Mythology regarding this point people argue that they were not fully informed as to the true nature of the contractual liability and therefore their signature was not valid. They allege that the other principle of the contract withheld information in order to perpetrate a fraud; further, they cite the limitation that one cannot sign without knowing willing consent and if they had known the true nature of the relationship they would never have signed the instrument. Or, they allege that the contract was created before they were born and that no person under eighteen years old can enter or be entered into a contract because they do not have the legal capacity to agree to enter and be bound by contract.
Though all of these alleged causes to rescind sound reasonable and are supportable with law, the fact is their application is foolhardy.
Note the other parties position:
The Social Security Administration's operation and intent is fully disclosed publicly with full notice and as such was available prior to your participation. Therefore, if you did not do due diligence in your discovery to understand your participation and the obligation to the same once you were involved that is not their problem nor is it cause for eliminating the contract's liability. Further, if the contract was made by a guardian while the named party was underage, they continued to participate under the contractual liability when they came of age which participation was a knowing willing consensual signature act binding the party to the contract without right to rescind.
The Bottom Line: if a person did not believe that their signature was valid, why would they attempt to rescind it. The only thing rescinding such a contractual obligation does is prove the person's signature on the contract.
We have never seen a Supreme Court case alleging a Second Amendment Right to personally keep and bear arms prove successful. There was a case that stated that a shotgun was not a Militia type weapon so it was not protected under the Second Amendment secured rights. Remember, there is no such thing as a Constitutional Right and if you do not know what your rights are, you don't have them.
If one understands the English language, the Second Amendment of The Constitution of the United States of America states, “A well regulated Militia …shall not be infringed.” Through the use of a ‘comma phrase’ the amendment also recognizes that such a Militia is “necessary to the security of a free State” and it so recognizes, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”. But, what is being stated about the right of the people to keep and bear Arms? Is it that it shall not be infringed at all or is it that the right is intrinsic to, “A well regulated Militia”? We would suggest that, as a matter of English language rules, the function of such ‘comma phrase’ structure sets the meaning to be the latter. Therefore, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is intrinsic to the necessity of the existence of such a Militia. This is why the United States Supreme Court rulings are consistent in that the Second Amendment secured right is relevant only to the necessary existence of the Militia. Therefore, when a person stands to proclaim they have a right to keep and bear Arms, not recognizing the related Militia necessity, they most often lose their case.
We are not saying that the private Right to keep and bear Arms is not protected. We are simply stating that Right is not stated in the Second Amendment. That right is reserved from governmental control in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Further, if one were to go back to the notes of the First Congress’ deliberations on the Second Amendment one would find that initially the Amendment was written to include such personal Arms rights but the Delegates determined that if they mentioned those rights eventually they would get legislatively controlled. They chose to change the Second Amendment to exclude mentioning such private rights thereby excluding them wholly from governmental legislative control by leaving them under the blanket protection of the Ninth Amendment.
The first thing to notice about this myth is that it presupposes the body taking the guns is “government”. At this point we must remember, the prevailing power of governance addressed here as "government" is not our government; but is rather a private foreign corporation commonly known as “The United States Government” (Corp. U.S.), which was created by our government under The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 or it is some entity created under Corp. U.S.’ control. Though one may register to vote within that private foreign corporation’s elections and come under their governance through that act, such a registration does not make that corporation our nation’s government. This must be remembered before we go on to discussing gun rights and how such corporate governance contractually removes them.
To address the common misunderstanding at the core of gun right legislation today we present the following:
First, Congress (Corp. U.S.’.) recognizes today’s Militia is the Army controlled National Guard and under the premise of Lincoln’s 1863 emergency Conscription Act et al. (still in effect today) they believe that there is no necessity today for a general people’s militia, which makes the Second Amendment's reservation of the people's posse comitatus militia related right to keep and bear Arms moot. They believe that today the concept of posse comitatus is passé and unnecessarily dangerous. For that reason, Congress today passes statutory controls over licensed gun ownership and use. These controls are not legally or lawfully functional over private ownership (as was again proven in Sheriff Richard Mack’s Supreme Court case against the enforceability of the Brady Bill). But, such controls are functional over the contracted gun use of registered gun owners.
This is the underlying limitation that swelters beneath a recent action reported to us in Denver, Colorado where a political candidate carried a gun to a rally as a political statement and was charged and convicted with a gun carry violation. In the newspapers and radio commentaries attorneys alleged that the Constitutions of Colorado and the United States were abandoned because Denver is under home rule. That is not a correct appraisal of the matter. Home rule does not eliminate proper application of a State's constitution or of the Constitution of the United States of America. Even under Home Rule the constitutions are properly applied under the State’s Enabling Act, as are the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
The fact that the gun itself was evidence in the case and that the man carrying it was a registered owner of the same binds that man to the local rules by contract. Wherefore it is well ruled that his private rights, though lawfully secured, are not applicable in this case because he voluntarily contracted to a higher standard via his registered gun ownership and use.
The key to this apparent dilemma of contractual liability is to secure Arms that do not come under registration requirements.
Further, on that point, any company controlled by legal (contractual) requirements limiting their sales through federally registered arms dealers cannot lawfully produce guns that are not so sold, therefore any gun produced by such a manufacturer that is not contractually registered is likely unlawfully owned and can therefore also be controlled (thus if the candidate above had not registered the gun he could legally be in nearly the same situation.
Obviously, the difficulties here are the not matters of law, and with this information it is very likely that the judge in question acted properly because the questions before him were not questions of Law, they were questions of equity (fairness according to contract), in which case the home rules and respective contractual application prevail.
The difficulties here are the people’s understanding of Law and their own contractual limitations. To discover what those are and what their remedies are—to simply and easily return to our self controlled lives secured by our God given inherent constitutionally secured rights—outside of any encroachment from such enforcement you can check out The Way of Kings™.
This myth's mythological nature may have a far more diabolical intention that must also be disclosed. Most indicators, excluding outcome, indicate the political intent of the powers that be is to limit and control gun ownership and use. However, the outcome of such apparent efforts implies the real intent is to flood the nation with non-automatic, low round semiautomatic and manual guns preparatory to an intentionally activated civil revolution.
People believe the government wants to eliminate guns because that is what we hear from the media. However, that is simply impossible—the "government" does not have the capacity to want anything. The government is a thing that was created by contract. Respectively, it can only function in accord with the terms of that contract; and those terms cannot authorize any unlawful act or intent. Thus, if any unlawful action or intent is in operation, the unlawful nature of the same can only be accomplished by parties acting outside of the law and the authority authorized by the government.
Regarding, that which is published about government in the media, the simple fact remains, if you ask people if they can believe what they hear and see in the media, they will tell you that you cannot. Still, the media promotes removal of gun ownership from the people of our nation. But, is that really the intent of the powers that be? If it is, why has their campaign caused more people to buy guns and why are guns more available today than ever?
In the years since the first Brady Bill gun ownership has risen to over 100 times the guns that were owned before the gun control scare. If Corp. U.S. really wanted to get rid of the guns, do you think you would still have them (except stored secretly)? Reports indicate that, under the threat of gun control, in the last ten years more guns have been produced and sold to Americans than all of the guns that were ever owned before in the history of our nation. Using this outcome as evidence, it indicates the powers that be are doing what they are doing to cause the people of America to arm themselves while they limit the capability of those arms. That is certainly the effect of their campaign, regardless of popular opinion. Thus, we call it a myth.
Put that together with the fact that the verdict of the United Nations conference on World Population in Cairo was that they need to reduce the World’s Population by at least Six Billion people! That was a call to eliminate six out of every seven people! That call was made nearly ten years ago with a global population of Seven Billion +, today I heard that the world's population is only Five Billion people. To maintain zero population growth a nation has to have a birth rate of at least 2.1%. The current birth rate in the United States is .8%. When the Cairo Conference took place there were 350 million people in the United States. Today, there are only 291 million people. These figures spell serious economic difficulties in ten years if something does not change.
Then consider the almost annual events that take place on the anniversary of Great Britain’s attack on Lexington and Concord, April 19th—the Corp. U.S. representatives admitted: they wrongfully attacked and killed the Randy Weaver Family at Ruby Ridge, Idaho without just cause; they wrongfully attacked and killed almost the entire parish of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Waco, Texas (the Branch Davidians); they provided the explosives and participated in the first World Trade Center bombing (wherein, eight people were killed and 1,000 were injured); further, evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates such agents blew up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (though the responsible parties have not yet admitted their participation); and, the evidence of a massive cover-up is ongoing on such agents’ involvement in the WTC and Pentagon attacks from September 11th, 2001 (the biggest question thereto related is: “Where is the evidence that an “airliner” hit the Pentagon?”). Interestingly enough that attack against the people of our nation took place on 911 (the telephone system’s "emergency code" phone number).
Then compare the result of these acts of terror against our people and notice the outcome. Notice Corp. U.S. agents creating a “security envelope” around the people that seem to have been involved; then notice, the exact same pattern of events that took place in Hitler's Germany as he started W.W.II and instituted his SS (State Security Police, aka Homeland Security). Compare that to the Corp. U.S. HS (Homeland Security, with its agents). We expect, left unaccountable, they may continue to tighten their “security” grip until they inspire the destruction of our economy; which would likely cause starvation and rebellion.
Thus, we expect that may be such agent’s intent—to cause a revolution that will reduce our nation to a similar status with any third world power; so, they can institute some global new world order with some 6,000,000,000 less people. After all, isn't that what was already agreed to in the so called Cairo Conference. Respectively, it should be no surprise that there may be those that are working on such an agenda. Of course, all the people need to do to eliminate such possibilities is learn and follow the law. Start with God’s Law. Make sure you are personally living righteously in accord with that law. Then, learn our history and laws and apply them to once again secure our nation in accord with the law.
Above, we reviewed some factual outcomes; please remember gun control is not factually a myth; the reality is every year more efforts are clearly focused on either gun or ammunition controls. Thus, this response to such controls simply provides a working theory based on reviewing those outcomes—which is the stuff from which mythology is made. Accordingly, we presented this myth merely as food for thought—presented to cause a person to notice one of the ways of debunking mythology is to notice the actual outcome.
Regardless of what anyone says: “by their fruits ye shall know them”. When we see agents using the powers of governance to do things that caused people to start things like: the Patriot Movement, the Tax Protest Movement and the Legal Research Movement we see an awakening in our nation. It is evident the people are working hard to discover the truth about what is happening.
The question regarding the purpose of Corp. U.S’. gun politics is not the myth; rather, it is a warning; and, the evidence is not all in yet. We presented it here to set a standard for watching and preparing for any outcome. Since President Franklin D. Roosevelt amended the Trading with the Enemy Act in 1933, Corp. U.S. has legislatively recognized that the people of this country are Corp. U.S' enemies; accordingly, it should be no surprise that there is a possibility that there are people working within the powers of governance to inspire the people to rebel against the government; so, they can quash the rebellion and with it your right to private property and with that our nation.
Evidence of that very thing is found in governmental movements made in the last several years which promoted such changes including: the unlawful P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, the Homeland Security Act and the latest stab the new Mandatory Health Act. Each of these Acts were made absent the aid of lawful authority constitutionally granted to Congress by the people. Each of these Acts were made to usurp extra constitutional authority over the people. Again, though some technically see such Acts as Acts of war against the people, the solution is not war or rebellion! Rather, such Acts give clear evidence of the cause for the people to learn the law and apply it; so, we can lawfully win our nation back.
Thus, we remind you, the King of Kings warned against raising conventional weapons of war in such situations. He warned us all to first seek His Kingdom and its righteousness. Respectively, in times such as these, we must first get ourselves right—that is to say: righteous; both personally and spiritually; we must repent and we must prepare by learning who we are and by learning the Law (starting with God’s law). Then unite with others in righteousness as we learn our own laws and history; only in that way can we win by applying the Law. This is the only way we can be sure to win our nation back legally, lawfully and with our lawful system intact secured and operating explicitly in accord with the laws of God and the Constitution of the United States of America.
There are those that would have you believe the State owns your car. This myth is usually promoted by those who would like to convince you that the only way you can be safe is to buy something from them that will protect you from the State's ownership of your car. The alleged proof the proponents of this myth would have you accept is either their allegation that the State’s name on the license plate tag shows who owns the car or they allege that when you give the state the original title to the car you are conveying the car to them and they become the owner any you become the permitted user. Both of these allegations are false. The simple fact is the State has no ownership interest in your car at all. To debunk this myth takes only the simplest understanding of ownership and contracts.
First let’s look at ownership:
The question is, “How does one acquire ownership?”
Ownership is usually acquired through purchase. A purchase is made through contract, which is defined by a transaction with a giver, a receiver, a valuable consideration over time and acceptance. Such relations are demonstrated in the related documentation. When you go to the store and buy a bag of oranges you pick out the oranges, take them to the check-out stand and pay for them and the store gives you a Title (receipt) for the oranges. The transaction for the car is not much different, except that the Title document may be a bit more complex. In most car ownership transactions there is a contract for sale, which, when completed and fulfilled, is your Title to the car, just like the receipt was for the bag of oranges. It shows the cars previous owner sold the car to you for a value that was agreed upon and exchanged. Some people will try to tell you that the Manufacturer's Statement of Origin (MSO) is the title to the car; it is not. The MSO is the car manufacturer's statement that gives the buyer notice of the individual components of the car, their sources and of the proof that the manufacturer was the lawful owner of the components they used to put the car together. In other words the MSO is the instrument the manufacturer uses to show that they have the lawful title to the car because they manufactured it from components they owned. Some people think that the “Certificate of Title” is the Title. It is not. The Certificate of Title is simply a certificate that represents the existence of a Title Insurance agreement over the car. It simply certifies that the state has used due diligence to cause you to demonstrate that you lawfully acquired the car and that their records do not show any defects in the ownership of the car. They certify that they will continue to secure the ownership of the car to you and they will use due diligence to secure that the car will not change ownership in their system in an unlawful manner. It is purely Title Insurance.
Second let’s look at the contractual relation:
In the process of securing a Certificate of Title for a car, there is nothing that states you are conveying ownership of the car to the State and there is nothing in the code that indicates any such thing. Wherefore, the alleged transfer of ownership from you to the State is false. The state does not own your car.
On first glance this myth seems irrational because we have all seen the title of the document at its head every time we see the Constitution. That is because, at the head of the Constitution virtually every publisher places a title like: “The Constitution of the United States of America”, or, “The Constitution of the United States”, or, “The United States Constitution”. Then again, we might notice the publishers do not agree as to the name of the Constitution. So, when someone shows us the original document and that it did not have a title before the enlarged bold first three words of the preamble, “We the People”, it seems like maybe we were wrong in thinking its title (name) was one of those names the publishers always use. Judge for yourself with this view of the original work:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Following our Standard Cause for Inquiry, that being: “Never believe anything just because someone says it or shows evidence that on first review seems right; rather, first do your own research and prove the facts with two or three evidentiary fact based evidences.” In this case, we turn again to the original documents and read the preamble.
So, when you read it did you notice the preamble plainly named the Constitution?
We repeat: “do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Therefore, the name of the Constitution that formed our government as a: ‘Constitutional Republic’, was, in fact, given in the Preamble; its title, is: Constitution for the United States of America.
Thus, by simply reading the preamble of the Constitution we discover its title was introduced by and included within the preamble; accordingly, we discover the allegation that “the constitution is an unnamed document” is yet another bit of mythology.
But wait! That is certainly not the end of this story because that Preamble was written for the original constitution itself alone; even before any amendments existed. Thus, we must wonder whether anything changed when the Amendments were added. Therefore, lets take a look at the Preamble to the “Bill of Rights”:
“ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America … pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.”
Notice how it too provides a different name for the Constitution once the amendments are added; respectively, it is important to pay particular attention to the difference between the two separate documents, each having their own unique name (title). Thus, we must ask both, ‘What is the distinction between the two names found in the preambles?’ And, ‘Do each of the names possess distinctive functions that lend importance to maintaining a distinction between the two documents?’
Given that the two preambles specifically provide separate functions for each of the documents: the originally ordained Constitution was the people’s trust indenture through which the original jurisdiction government was formed; and, the amended Constitution was formed as a limitation against the misuse of the power the people provided the government; such that it could function to the limited ends for which it was ordained and established—we can easily see that each of these two documents served distinctively separate functions:
- The “Constitution for the United States of America” is clearly the Trust Indenture the people used to create our ‘Constitutional Republic’ form of government; that is to: ordain and establish “a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”; and,
- Because officers of that government so formed are required to take an oath to honor and uphold the “Constitution of the United States of America”, it is clear that it serves as the binding contract the people used to limit such officers (and those that serve under them) from using the authority granted in said “Trust Indenture”. In fact, at the time of their adopting the original Constitution, several States compelled the First Constitutional Congress to seat to form (and compel the use of) the “Constitution of the United States of America” due to their desire to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the powers provided in said original Constitution; respectively the new amendments added declaratory and restrictive clauses, which extended grounds for public confidence in the Constitutional Republic form of government, would continue to best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
Whereas the elements of those two distinctions only work properly when you acknowledge the historical timing of those two distinct instruments, the difference between their specific purposes and the difference in their names (titles) designates that the two instruments are indeed two separate instruments; one used to create the Constitutional Republic and the other one used to compel the limitations against governmental abuse of power through the oaths of office of each governmental officer and employee required to take such oaths (and those that serve under the same).
Thus, though we have herein dispelled the myth, we also revealed the distinction between two separate constitutions for our Constitutional Republic; however, those (and the subsequently formed State constitutions) are not the only constitutions we need to take notice of here. Within the “District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871” (the Act that formed Corp. U.S.), Corp U.S. adopted yet another constitution titled: “The United States Constitution”. It is Corp. U.S’. own private corporate constitution (and is the one people are most familiar with today). It is most easily distinguished from the “Constitution of the United States of America” by the number of the amendments; Corp. U.S’. constitution currently (2012) has 27 Articles of Amendment, where the Constitution of the United States of America still has only 16 Articles of Amendment (the last of which was ratified on February 3, 1870). In 1871, when Corp. U.S. was formed, the original jurisdiction Constitution had only 16 articles of amendment and the only differences between it and Corp. U.S’. adopted constitution was that said adopted constitution was missing the original jurisdiction Constitution’s 13th Article of amendment; thus, in said adopted constitution Corp. U.S. renumbered the original jurisdiction Constitution’s 14th, 15th and 16th articles of amendment as Corp. U.S’. 13th, 14th and 15th articles of amendment. Thus, from the time of Corp. U.S’. formation (in 1871), they have most often published their said adopted constitution with the published title: “United States Constitution”; however they also, from time to time, Corp. U.S. errantly uses either of the other two names at the title to their publication of their adopted constitution—however, simply noting whether such instruments include amendments (which the original Trust Indenture did not) and/or whether such instruments include the original jurisdiction Constitution’s 13th Article of amendment (which Corp. U.S’. does not) will confirm for you which of the three distinct constitutions you are looking at.
Thus, from this review, though you can easily see the myth that “The Constitution is an unnamed document” has no merit; there are actually three distinct instruments each of which are constitutions that are related to our nation; two that formed the original jurisdiction ‘Constitutional Republic’ form of government and one that was adopted by Corp. U.S. to make it easier for attorneys, etc. to serve in Corp. U.S. offices.
Respectively, we hope our revealing these facts makes it quite clear how important it is to learn our actual history from the documents and records of that history (the source). Team Law’s purpose is to help people awaken to that necessity and then to help them learn how to learn the law so they can apply it to help save our nation; and respectively the world; accordingly, we hope that revealing these myths so helps you—and we welcome your support.
It is not a myth that debt can be eliminated; it can be. All you have to do is stop creating more debt and pay off what you have already. Still, there are occasions when some unplanned event catches people in a situation where they they no longer have the means to meet their obligations. That is where this myth begins as an interesting concept many people are dissuaded by. The myth alleges that the bank is loaning you your own credit, which would be illegal, if in fact that is what they were doing; and there have been cases where that is exactly what the bank did. That is exactly what makes this myth so compelling. The problem here is that such cases are rare; thus the myth that “all bank and credit card loans are loaning you your own credit” is false. In most cases, the bank making the loan, according to the terms and conditions of the lending agreement, issues the loan based upon their average daily asset base. Generally, they only use 80% of that base to capitalize (fund) their loans and your particular loan cannot be part of that base. That being the case it is impossible for your loan to be the bank loaning you your own credit.
Ten years ago we actually saw some cases where banks processed loan applications with a promissory note for the loan amount, which the bank then placed into their assets prior to issuing the loan, which is not lawful. In such a case, the myth of debt elimination is no myth at all. We recall the case where Rick Schram (Right-Way Law) fought this in court and won because the bank could not show that was not what they did. At that time, some banks were putting the cart before the horse in such an unlawful way.
Today, it is rare to find a bank that has a promissory note included with their loan application documents. If your loan had one it would be wise to make sure that your bank did not get the cart before the horse. Such is not the case with most loans. Most bank loans today are lawfully issued; in fact to avoid the appearance of wrong doing in such cases today most banks do not process granted loan collateral security instruments until at least the day after the loan is funded. Such a delay practice insures that the bank could never be accused of loaning you your own credit.
There are many marketers of legitimate debt elimination packages available. Some such packages include a process of debt consolidation, working with current lenders to negotiate reduced payments and re-marketing a new single loan that can bring a person’s total monthly payment down to a manageable amount; if that is not available to a person’s situation they may suggest bankruptcy, which also can eliminate debt.
Then there are the fraudulent debt elimination package promoters. These are those that claim that all bank loans were based on loaning you your own credit. As we have shown above, such loans have occurred, and that is exactly why such package marketers can present a compelling show to a person in trouble with their debt. Such packages can be quite expensive as well, and are usually progressive in their costs, so the the person in debt can afford them. The United States government's Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Enforcement & Compliance Division has issued a letter to all banking institutions warning them of such schemes. You can see by following that link that the Comptroller of Currency has marked: “America’s Advantage”, “eliminatemortgages.com”, “goodbyemortgages.com”, “mortgageelimination.net”, “the7thfire.com”, “Financial Dynamics”, and “remedywithredemption.com” as organizations that market fraudulent debt elimination packages. We have no experience with an of these organizations and have no intention of investigating them.
Where we have no contest with legitimate debt elimination packages or processes (as noted two paragraphs above), we have two significant problems with the other so called debt elimination processes: First, to accept such a process a person has to be willing to violate their willingly made promise to pay, thus sacrificing their honor, perhaps eternally (that is too high a price to pay); and Second, in most cases the process attacks the lender for something the lender simply did not do, violates the contract and significantly places the borrower in jeopardy. For these reasons we are extremely skeptical of such so called debt elimination packages and programs; they usually cost far more than they are worth if they have any value at all.
To debunk the myth, we review a bank's legitimate lending process. Lending banks are in the business of using their average daily asset base as the basis for loans. Their average daily asset base is derived at least from both hard asset holdings and collateralized assets. No one seems to have anything against them utilizing 100% of their hard assets as the basis of loans so we will not look at that part of the process. Where the question comes in is the banks use of collateralized assets, especially their use of their accounts receivable as the basis of loans. When a lending bank originates a loan, they originate a new account receivable; that is to say, they have a collateralized right to receive payments according to the terms of that account and they are allowed to use 80% of the value of such accounts as an asset basis for originating new loans. The concern is that if the bank were to use your own loan as part of that asset base for initiating your loan, that would be lending you your own credit, which is not lawful. That is exactly why most banks today do not process new loans as new accounts receivables until after the loan funds. As you can see if the loan is not processed as an account receivable until after it funds, it could not have possibly been a part of the consideration for granting you a loan.
One final note on this point. There have been banks that have unlawfully granted loans where the basis of the loan was the person’s own credit and it can happen today. There are also people that discover such, knowingly and willingly take out loans with the intention of thereafter suing the bank for fraud and thus getting the funding with no obligation to repay. Knowingly participating at any level with such a fraud is criminal fraud, regardless of whether you are the borrower or the lender. Wherefore we would avoid all such debt elimination processes. Though it is true a monetary system based upon debt can creates paper giants in the banking industry and we can argue the honor of such legal business relations; still, loans based on someone else’s credit are lawful in the United States banking system and challenging such banking processes in the courts is a losers game wisely avoided.
We have been hearing a lot about the alleged National Economic Stabilization and Recovery Act of 2000 (NESARA), though its story is shrouded with clandestine secrecy. People keep asking us about it, wondering if it is real. In almost every case they sound like if it is true it would be a wonderful thing.
We are amazed at that reaction.
When we first heard about it we noted the apparent fraud of NESARA in the first two elements reported to us:
First, though Congress can hold closed sessions, neither The United States of America’s Congress nor Corp. U.S.’ Congress were ever given authority to act in secret; to the contrary, the nature of their authority requires their acts must be public; and,
Second, can you truly imagine that Bill Clinton or George Bush would sign an Act that would effectively put them in prison, likely for the rest of their lives; can you imagine that of Congress? Can you even imagine that any of these people would voluntarily give up their positions of power and profit, let alone the allegation that they would admit their personal involvement in a treasonous fraud upon the public? We cannot. We find the suggestion of such a thing is ludicrous.
Their website alleges that it will be announced by May 5th, 2004 of course through February and March they were saying that it would be announced by March 22nd, 2004, so their lies continue. Their e-mail deliveries a, “NESARA Announcement” regarding a case allegedly before the World Court. Certainly people must realize the World Court has no authority over The United States of America. To give it such authority would be the downfall of our nation. It would mean that court has authority over the sovereign nature of this nation of sovereigns and over our personal and individual sovereignty — Only God has that authority (many are foolish enough to believe they can privately contract away their sovereignty, of course they will eventually learn the fallacy of that when they account for it before their maker).
We have done the research. Though there is a lot of talk about NESARA, there are no facts. The allegation of its existence implies authorities that do not exist. Their web site alleges that it:
- “Provides forgiveness of credit card, mortgage, and other bank debt as remedy for bank and government frauds”, Which is their way of saying that they will abolish private contractual obligations (bank contracts), which means dishonor and violation of law; the Constitution secures against such interference with contracts [such interference would constitute government control over private property and private contracts—which is Communism]; no thanks!
- “Abolishes the IRS; creates flat rate non-essential "new items only" sales tax revenue for government”, which would create a virtually unlimited sales tax, which is exactly what the Boston Tea Party was all about. Such a sales tax would make every business transaction or contract controllable by Corp. U.S. and spell death rattle to free enterprise; no thanks!
- “Initiates U.S. Treasury Bank System, which absorbs the Federal Reserve, and new precious metals backed U.S. Treasury currency”; which would initiate a government owned banking system, which Andrew Jackson proved was unconstitutional and rightfully abolished; thus, no thanks!
- “Restores Constitutional Law”; but in its allegations and existence it violates our Constitution for the United States of America in many ways; so, the question is: “What Constitution’s Law”; Red China, the USSR and Hitler’s Germany all have or had constitutions and each of them claimed to be Republics;
- “Requires resignations of current administration to be replaced by Constitutionally acceptable NESARA President and Vice President Designates until new elections within 120 days”; in violation of our Constitutions. By requiring the resignation of Corp. U.S.’ President, Cabinet and Congress, for the replacement of an appointed body of delegates, to rule over their new regime until new elections under their new system can be held. How can anyone be fooled by such overt threat of takeover by a pre-selected few with 4 months time to destroy us — Forgive me but that promise of NESARA alone should be enough to scare our entire nation — A pre-selected Oligarchy under the appointment authority allegedly ordered by the World Court! — Wake up!!! Can you not smell the impending disaster in the wake? It’s ludicrous!
Further, none of it ever happened—no credit debt was forgiven, the IRS still exists, There is no Corp U.S. Bank, and Clinton served two full terms in office and neither he, his cabinet nor any members of Congress stepped down according to the dictates of NESARA.
We need go no further — Dear Father in Heaven, we thank thee for making us aware of such a disastrous plot. We ask for Thy help to keep us free from such an abomination against our nation, its people and its Constitution with the Republic it secured, may we educate ourselves with the truth and find that Republic again we pray in the name of our Lord and Savior, Amen.
The allegations of the NESARA web page’s, too good to be true, “Benefits” and the bogus alleged “History” pages are staggering! The underlining message adds to the threat shown above, a secret regime operated under the threat of death sponsoring “controlled elections” (like USSR—VoteScam on steroids), oh yes and let us not forget the pipe dream of more benefits, real money—free for the taking, world peace, world prosperity, and free energy!
Look out the pied piper is back. For a long time we have noted that the our nation has been targeted for Communist takeover either politically or by compelling a revolution by the people. The current form of governance here is that of a Fascistic Oligarchy (dictatorial government controlled business operated by a controlling body). All it would take to push it into Communism is some way of taking over private property. NESARA does it. We hope the people will end this myth and remove it with the truth. You can help referring people to this website and helping people learn about a real solution to restoring our nation. We can reseat our original jurisdiction government.
We hope people will wake up before the ride is over and discover the truth before it is too late. Reading about NESARA is the scariest thing I have ever read. This gives a whole new meaning to the terms: Secret Combinations and Gadianton Robbers. May we survive them.
There are many myths regarding the nature of “our government” spread all over the internet and social networking systems. Some of those myths include ideas about how the Federal Reserve Bank/System, Money, IRS, etc. opperate; lending to tax protestor causes and media productions like Aaron Russo’s documentary Freedom to Fascism. Respectively, compiled this combined article to debunk some of the myths that keep the people from learning the truth about how such things work in the United States of America. We hope this topic continues to inspire support for learning the truth about what is happening in our country today and rallies support for reseating our original jurisdiction government in every State of this Union of States.
When you finish reading this topic you will understand the following statement is correct:
“The myths we address here include one that debunks most of the Tax Protestors’ favorite arguments and one about Federal Reserve Notes popularized by Ed Griffin’s book, Creature From Jekyll Island, which alleges, The Federal Reserve Bank prints money out of nothing (with no backing or value). Though it may seem preposterous, the simple fact remains, the Federal Reserve System has nothing whatsoever to do with either ‘money’ or ‘our government’.”
Little or no prerequisite knowledge was needed to understand any of the myths (1–21) listed above; however, understanding this myth requires your understanding of each of the following seven points of Prerequisite Knowledge. Thus, understanding this myth requires study. To simplify that study, we linked each element of fact and or history in the list below to information you can use to research the facts and prove each point for yourself. Each of these links will open a page in a new window; so, you can review the information there, then close that window and return to this page to continue with this topic as your guide until you come to the end where you will understand why most of the tax protestors claims are wrong and why what the Federal Reserve does with their notes (FRN’s) is not fraud; though, it is not likely what you thought either. We hope you enjoy the journey and learn the truth, so that you can apply it.
Each of the following subtopics adds to the previous one; therefore,
you need to follow each link in sequence before you continue with the next point.
- The history and nature of Corp. U.S. Historical Outline.
- The 1871 creation of the private corporation named, “District of Columbia”;
- The effect of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871.
- The actual relationship initially offered by the Federal Reserve Bank.
- The changes to the Federal Reserve Bank relationship after the Corp. U.S. bankruptcy in 1933.
- The purpose of Corp. U.S.’ Social Security Act of 1935.
- The relationship created by Social Security Administration on application of the SS-5 form.
- The exact nature of the Federal Reserve Note and its usage.
If you did not follow the links in each of the previous seven points and read those topics in sequential order, stop now, go back and read each of those seven points in sequential order before you continue with this presentation.
If you understand each of the seven elements listed above you now know the basics of how federal reserve notes work and the true nature of the “New Deal” Corp. U.S. created through the Social Security Administration system. If Aaron Russo or Ed Griffin understood these facts they would not ask for an active rebellion against Corp. U.S., rather they would be telling the people, ‘We need to reseat our original jurisdiction government.’ Exactly like Team Law is doing. As their video suggests, we the People can unite, but not on principles of rebellion as they imply; rather, on the principles of law and history that show us how to reseat our government in accord with law.
Putting it All Together:
At the onset of this myth we stated that we would address two myths here: one that debunks most of the Tax Protestors’ favorite claims and the one about Federal Reserve Notes popularized by Ed Griffin’s book, Creature From Jekyll Island. Again, if you understand the factual and or historical elements listed in the seven points above, you will realize that list already did that. Still, we did point those out directly; so, follow along and discover the truth:
- Most tax protestor claims start by alleging that the taxpayer is in fact a sovereign American protected by the Constitution’s limitation against direct income taxes. The courts certainly support the Constitution’s limitation against direct income taxes when it is properly presented; however, that protection does not reach out to most taxpayers. Most tax protestors go to court with documents that show the protestor has a Taxpayer Identification Number (hereinafter “TIN”), which, as shown in the points above, signifies the taxpayer is actually an agency for Corp. U.S., which the courts have ruled is exactly what the Corp. U.S.’ 16th Article of Amendment to the United States Constitution was all about. Even without that 16th amendment, Corp. U.S. can lawfully directly tax its agencies without apportionment. Thus, understanding the true nature of the relationship Social Security Administration creates resolves and debunks most tax protestor arguments against the IRS collected tax system. Remember, the TIN is not your number!
- We know Ed Griffin’s book, Creature From Jekyll Island has a following of believers; it appeals to people because it presents an apparently plausible theory, which consists of 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. Though that might be treasonous if it had happened and though it may appear to have happened, the facts show it did not happen, at least not like Ed presents it. First of all, 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 (Corp. U.S. and the Federal Reserve Bank). The book also alleges Corp. U.S. and or the Federal Reserve Bank are fraudulently creating money out of nothing; however, the Federal Reserve Bank generates its notes in accord with the agreement between it and Corp. U.S. wherein Corp. U.S. basically rents the Federal Reserve Notes and then Corp. U.S. uses those notes to track internal funding relationships between its agencies. Where no money or instrument of actual value is needed to complete such a transaction tracking processes, no fraud could possibly be therein proven. Whereas, virtually all of the other constructive processes where the book alleges money is being created out of nothing are based on what the feds allegedly do with money and fail to even remotely address “money” itself, those allegations of “money” being created out of nothing are also fruitless when compared with the facts. The facts show that the Federal Reserve Bank System does not dabble in money (except by way of foreign currency exchange), they use only FRNs, which are not money.
Finally, regarding those myths we note, some people will read this and find it so fantastic that it extends beyond their current belief system. To them we say, it is not our responsibility to convince you of anything; rather, it is your responsibility to learn the truth and to apply it. It is impossible to learn the truth without studying the actual facts and laws related to the matter; thus, we suggest, if what we have presented seems beyond belief, go back and study the seven points we presented above—research their accuracy for yourself.
We find that before people fell prey to the myths we debunked on this page, most of them believed the stories they were told in public school, at work and in the media—thus, they passed the stories on as factual to their friends and families. Then something happened; and, some of the people began to learn, from third party sources, of conspiracy theories and or fraud and collusion in our government. When they first hear those stories they often did not believe them, but as time went on, and they saw more evidence, they became thoroughly convinced. Once they became convinced even when they performed their own studies they only saw the same things. Still, all of that does not make the stories true. The problem is, everywhere they go to stand for that which they believe in, they find opposition even in the law. We suggest, the problem is not in the law but in their understanding of it. We suggest to them, go back over what we presented here and take a chance to do your own first-hand study. Check out the facts, the history and the law and test it for yourself against what we presented here; discover if it is not true.
Then, give it one more test. Before you study, read James 1:5 from the New Testament, and invoke that test upon it as well; then after you study, do the same. Finally, when you learn the truth, share what you learned with everyone by telling people where you learned the truth. Don’t try to describe it all to them, they may find it all too fantastic to believe. Simply send them to this website (teamlaw.net) and point them to Myth 22, reminding them to read each of the seven points in sequential order, then have them return and report what they learned. Each time you talk to them after that, ask if they read the myth. If they have not, let them know they are really missing something, and let it go at that until the next time you talk and the subject comes up.
We would be done with this myth at this point but we perceive a far greater danger in Russo’s documentary, Freedom to Fascism. It calls for unified active resistance against Corp. U.S. The problem with such resistance is, that is exactly what Corp. U.S. seems to want. For Corp. U.S. to actually become the government of this country they need to either fully disclose the truth and let the people vote on them becoming our government or they need to conquer the country in a war.
There is no doubt that Corp. U.S. agents have been involved in some grievous acts against our country and its people, the likes of which have spawned many ‘conspiracy theories’: the April 19th events like, the attack on the Weaver family in Ruby Ridge, Idaho; the destruction of the Seventh–Day Adventist Retreat in Waco, Texas; the demolition of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; the February 26, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center; the September 11, 2001 events at the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon. Responding to such theories reasonable people ask, “Why would the government do such things?” A reasonable response is:
“Corp. U.S. is not our government; rather, it is a private foreign corporation that in 1933 statutorily legislated that the people of the United States of America are enemies (Trading with the Enemy Act); and, second, the last two steps (planks) of the general plan for a communistic government takeover of a great nation are:
- Form a national police force
(which Homeland Security did as a result of the 9-11-2001 events);
- Cause the people to rebel against the government.
This last step would give those that control Corp. U.S. the cause to step in with ‘Homeland Security’ forces and lock down the cities. It happened in Germany, Poland, Russia and China. The only element currently missing from such a takeover of our country is the people have not actively revolted. Thus, we expect Corp. U.S. would welcome such a plan of active resistance as their best excuse for a Homeland Security lock down and takeover of our country, in the name of security. The one thing we must not do is give any cause for such an action.” There are only two lawful ways for Corp. U.S. to become the actual government of this great country:
- by the lawful knowing willing choice of the people, made by a vote of the people in accord with the provisions of our Constitution; or,
- by conquering our nation in war.
A wise martial arts instructor once said, “The best art of defense is to not be there.” In other words the best way to win the fight is to not fight — take up no weapons of violence. Instead we must learn the truth and apply it to lawfully take our country back. At the numbered point "5." above, we showed how Corp. U.S. legally and lawfully owns virtually all of the private property that was acquired using a Taxpayer Identification Number. We also showed how Corp. U.S. legally and lawfully controls virtually all businesses owned in the United States of America that have a Taxpayer Identification Number. Now, we ask that you look at the definition of Communism. And, while you remember Corp. U.S. is still only a private foreign corporation today, imagine whether or not the powers that be within it or controlling it might want it to be the actual government of this country — they act as if they think they already are.
We admit, that is the scariest part about busting this myth — the truth about where we are today. At this point, again most people just want to know how they can get out of this situation. They simply want out of Corp. U.S.’ control. They want their God given Liberty and their Freedom. The problem is, they don’t know how to get it and they are not usually willing to do the study necessary to learn our history and the law so they can legally and lawfully secure their freedom. So let’s relieve the fear a little by remembering, Corp. U.S. is not our actual government, rather it is a private foreign corporation that most businesses and people have contracted with to carry out their business relations (either not knowing what they were doing or not knowing any other way to survive). Like in any other corporation, Corp. U.S. is the government within the confines of its own contractual relations; but that still does not make it the government of our country.
Unlike the other myths presented on this page, this myth also requires a solution because unlike the other myths this myth strikes near to the hearts of every man, woman, child and business in this country and effects most of the people in our world. Thus, we need to show the solution, which Team Law has already set in motion and perfected.
The last battle our country fought for freedom on this scale was the War of Independence, where Great Britain was attempting to take over the self-ruled independent governments of the sovereign people. That battle required the people to unite and form a Union. They did, and they won. They were a God revering people with a righteous cause. They were fighting on our own soil with weapons of war against the world’s strongest military force. Today, we find ourselves in a similar situation; where the world’s strongest political force already has lawful (contractual) control over our military force and to stand against it in a military battle would be foolhardy suicide for both our Constitutional Republic and our people. This is not, and we cannot allow it to become, that kind of war. Yet, that is the path the Aaron Russo documentary and Bob Schulz’s We the People Organization are pushing towards. We, the actual People, cannot allow that to happen! We do need to unite, but not in ignorance based upon third party allegations and hype directed towards a battle vested in hate.
To win our country back today the only effective weapons are the tools of our Law and of the Spirit (patterned after the teachings of the King of Kings. For those that don’t yet believe they believe in God the rest of us should continue to pray for us all and we welcome everyone’s support in the solution — this remedy is not about anyone’s religion or religious beliefs). Still, the battle before us is one just as amazing and against similar odds as our country’s founding fathers fought against Great Britain; and we should take it just as seriously even though most of the people may today be unfamiliar with Law; all it takes to remedy that and win this battle is a little study and application of the law.
We must learn our history and the law to win our country back. Learning is not enough — we must also act and follow the law to reseat our original jurisdiction government and, like our country’s founding fathers, we must live worthy of the King of Kings’ promised support. Corp. U.S. is easily controlled with law, if you know the law and follow it. This is exactly why Team Law is involved in helping people learn the law; it is also why we support The Way of Kings™, which helps people learn how to lawfully move ownership and control of assets out of Corp. U.S. and back into its rightful owner’s hands.
We directed you to the factual information that exposes and debunks the myths shown above, but it also exposed the necessity for resolving our current situation and made it necessary for you to do something to save yourself and our country. The solution is found in following the following five steps:
- If you are not living worthy of the blessings promised by the King of Kings, you need to repent and get your life in order so that we all can stand together worthy of the blessings of the King of Kings.
- If you have either a different religious persuasion or none at all, please forgive us for addressing this message to the bulk of our country’s population and work together with us regardless of religious differences — this battle is for Freedom and the future of our country.
- We have to spread the word. If you have not already reviewed the links shown in this topic, do it now! They give you the supporting history necessary to understand the truth about what is going on in America today.
- Study the truth and keep studying our history and the law until you can defend it from your own experience with it; get involved with Team Law for support in learning our history and the law. We promise we will not do your work for you (nobody can), you have to do it yourself if we are to win. We also promise we will do all we can to support your effort.
- Get involved and participate in the original jurisdiction gubernatorial election in your state. We need to seat all of the original jurisdiction governors up for election each year from now on. Contact Team Law for help and support in this work. With our governors in place they can lawfully reseat the country’s Senate, which is necessary to confirm a national election of our country’s President; and,
- Finally, we have to awaken the people themselves to what is going on. When that happens we will hold a lawful election of the President of the United States of America and reseat our original jurisdiction Constitutional Republic.
When this is done, the battle will be over and we will have won, but the war does not end there, it requires eternal vigilance and faithfulness; we must remain a righteous people and teach our children and our children’s children so that we never come under such subjugation again.
This battle will be expensive: we each must devote time to our own education; we must each alert our neighbors; and, whereas Team Law has so far been fighting this battle for the most part on its own, we need supportive donations to keep the battle going. To awaken the people in mass we will need to get materials distributed to the people through mass media systems. That is going to cost more than we have available so we need all we can get from anyone willing and able to support this great work. We have never before posted a request for funding like this because we want our work to remain about the work. At this time, the work we have already done is self-evident on this site and on our Open Forum, thus you can see what we have already accomplished. Now, we need to turn to the people, to you, and say we need your support. We are ready to start pushing towards the end of this battle and we need all of the help we can get. All donations are acceptable in any amount and in any means whether they come by way of mail using our order form’s provisions for donations or through PayPal or with e-gold or by whatever means. Send whatever you can spare so we can begin funding the last phase of this battle, the awakening of the people in mass.
You can find more on this topic on Team Law’s Forum.
This myth is sometimes spread by marketer’s, disgruntled by our nation’s current state of affairs; and though we understand people finding fellowship in being so disgruntled, we are always amazed that this whopper doesn’t immediately turn people away from those marketers. We have to imagine those marketer's are only successful because the people they dupe with this myth cannot possibly know much about either the Articles of Confederation (hereinafter "AoC") or the history of that time. So, to debunk this myth, we will first look at the AoC itself then logically review it in accord with our history.
The preamble paragraph of the AoC states:
“We the delegates of the states affixed to our names send greeting.
WHEREAS, the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina and Georgia in the Words following, viz.
"Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina and Georgia."”
Notice how the AoC acknowledges the formation of the confederacy (Union) of the listed states on a certain date. From there, let’s take a look at the effect of the signatures so affixed as described in the last clause of Article 13:
“ARTICLE XIII. … In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-eight, and in the third year of the independence of America.”
Therefore, though the AoC preamble shows the AoC was made and initially dated on: ‘November 15, 1777’, Article 13 indicates the signatures began to be affixed on: ‘July 9, 1778’. However, several of the signatures bear later dates. For example: Maryland’s signatures are recognized as the joining State that finally bound the Union in accord with the AoC’s terms; however, Maryland’s signatures were not added to the AoC until: ‘March 1, 1781’. Therefore, in accord with the AoC own terms, and the authority of the states so forming said Union, the Union itself was not complete until, each State’s delegates signatures were so affixed on the AoC.
It is also interesting to note the name given to the Union:
“ARTICLE I. The stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America."”
Now, let's look at the provision for changing the AoC from the first clause of Article 13:
“ARTICLE XIII. Every State shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the Legislatures of every State.
Thus, the AoC are clear in their intent that they cannot be changed except by a unanimous confirmation from every State. This last Article of the AoC became the biggest boondoggle upon the national government. Though the AoC’s significant errors were recognized by each of the Union’s states, the need for change could not be accomplished; at least because, Rhode Island would not confirm any change. That earned the State the nickname: “Rogue Island”. Thus, some of the States commissioned the formation of a college of deputies with the intent of correcting the problems of the AoC. Each State sent its deputies to the college with their sovereign authority. Initially, they hoped they could reform the AoC; but, that soon proved impractical. Ultimately, it became clear, there was no way to fix the AoC. So, in 1787, the college generated The Constitution for the United States of America.
From that time until the present, there have been those that contest that because the Union, so formed by the AoC, was defined as “perpetual”, it cannot be changed or removed except by its own terms; however, both history and law make it clear that contest has no merit. Such laws can be and have been changed through the normal operation of law; and historically, the Articles were vacated in accord with its own terms by the AoC Congress.
A review of the AoC Congress’ records shows it continued to function while the college was formed right through its creation of the Constitution. It also shows that initially that AoC Congress expressed its lack of support of the college that was forming the Constitution; forbidding its members from attending, even though many of them were invited so to attend. However, as time passed, The Federalist Papers were published and many of those that did not initially see the merits of the new Constitution joined the growing ranks of its supporters. The growing disfavor of the lack of support from the Confederacy’s Congress and its diminishing members finally resulted in its authorizing its member to attend said college and to that end the AoC Congress adjourned indefinately. Regarding such adjournments the AoC provides:
“ARTICLE IX. … The Congress of the United States shall have power to adjourn to any time within the year, and to any place within the United States, so that no period of adjournment be for a longer duration than the space of six months…”
Those that promote this myth have two differing opinions of what happened next. We will address each of those opinions separately as follows:
One school of thought holds the following mythological idea:
“From that last adjournment, the AoC authorized Congress was never reconvened. Thus, because the AoC made the Union formed under it perpetual, the AoC Union still exists and the AoC is still in full force and effect.”
However, that myth is debunked by acknowledging the terms of the AoC and history as follows:
In accord with said AoC, Article IX, an adjournment of more than “six months” was expressly forbidden. Thus, if such an adjournment did take place such an abandonment of the express limitations of the AoC certainly indicates a change in honor of the terms of the AoC. However, history proves that did not mark an end of the perpetual Union; though if it happened as alleged that would mark a breach of honor to the terms of the AoC by every State that no longer sent Representatives to that AoC Congress. Thus, if that AoC Congress never reconvened that could mark an end of the confederate style of government for the perpetual Union the AoC formed. Further, that final adjournment would have also marked the beginning of our Constitutional Republic style of government under which that perpetual Union has continued forward.
Still, some people allege the AoC remains in full force and effect. But, how can it? All of the authority in it came from the states; and, that authority came to the states from the people; and that authority came to the people from God. Here is what the AoC says about that (from the central clause of Article 13):
“ARTICLE XIII. … And whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the Legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union. Know ye that we, the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: and we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said confederation are submitted to them. And that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.”
So, we ask: “Why did they, at such a time, so adjourn?”
The answer to that is all too clear, their constituents no longer wanted that form of government for their perpetual Union—they wanted a change. Rebellions, mini wars, strife, the threat of bankruptcy and its necessity for ongoing foreign aid were destroying the country. So, given the college’s potential for a resolve, the AoC Congress really had no choice but to allow their members to attend the College and to respectively adjourn. It was their only hope for the potential future support of the people, of the respective states’ legislatures or of the State Governors; without which that Congress was already dead.
The causes of that lack of support came from the AoC’s significant flaws, which were causing the destruction of the Union; we list a few as follows:
- The AoC acknowledges the respective State governments as “sovereign”.
- However, to understand that they were not and cannot be sovereign, we only need go to the issue of Landownership; for sovereignty is defined by its three key elements: “Dominion, Agency and Possession”; and, whereas, the Dominion on a freehold landowner's land includes the Dominion over that land limits the State from any possibility of dominion over that Land. You will understand Landownership better if you first review Team Law’s Land 101 article, from our forum. Thus, the authors of the AoC did not possess the authority to allege such a sovereign power over the people in The United States of America; because it is the people themselves that are sovereign here (that because of their landownership)..
- Our Constitution recognizes that problem by making the States subject both to the central government (as provided in the Constitution’s Article 1 § 10) and to the law and rights of the people (as acknowledged in the Constitution’s 9th and 10th articles of amendment).
- Thus, that which is now called “State sovereignty” is not sovereignty itself at all (like the AoC states were trying to impose over the people and others); rather, it is the limited authority the people grant to the State to act for the people using a portion of the peoples’ collective sovereignty such as is necessary to accomplish the limited things the State government is constitutionally authorized to do.
- The AoC Congress could not act alone and needed the consent from at least nine of the state’s legislatures confirmation on everything they proposed; which thing created a boondoggle every time anything needed to be done. That along with the limitation against any changes to the AoC absent unanimous consent on that same order from every State, made perfecting the Union impossible.
- The limitation against growth destined the Union to those original 13 states along with the allowance that Canada could join the Union. Thus, the AoC eliminated to possibility of growth unless a change could be made in spite of the impossibility expressed in the last paragraph (2).
Though those three limitations were not the only problems, those alone were sufficient to create a problem that could not be resolved by rewriting the AoC. Thus, the AoC was destined to fail from its first moments. The good news was that the nation did not spend much time in that destruction bound path.
The final nail in the coffin for the AoC was the states’ ratification of the Constitution; which required nine states to ratify. With that ratification, the AoC Congress could never reconvene—for it needed those states to reconvene Thereafter, each of the original Union’s 13 states formed new constitutions of their own, which constitutions each internally ratified their perpetual union to the Constitutional Republic so formed by the nations new Constitution; and, that new Constitution lawfully formed “a Congress of the United States” that could lawfully alter the form of government from Confederacy to Constitutional Republic; which was then ratified by each of the States legislatures; as was required under the AoC Article XIII. So died the AoC. In truth, under scrutiny, it could have never stood against a true test of Law. In, The United States of America, the people are the only sovereigns.
The other school of thought holds to the following mythological idea:
“The AoC Congress did attempt to reconvene but it did not have sufficient numbers present to form a quorum that authorize the new Constitution; thus, the AoC and its Congress are still in effect.”
However, that myth is also debunked by acknowledging the terms of the AoC and history as follows:
For those that acknowledge the AoC Congress did, in fact, reconvene, but claim that there was no quorum to vote on the matter, their claim is the AoC, Article XIII required every State to agree to change the terms of the AoC. However, that was not the issue before that Congress. There was no proposal before the AoC Congress asking for such a change. What came before them was a request for a resolution to accept an entirely new Constitution. The following is the documentary history of how that happened.
[ At Team Law, we recognize this as the lawful path the founding fathers followed.]
On, September 17th, 1787, at the close of the college of delegates that formed the “Constitution for the United States of America”, having completed their task and signed that Constitution, the Convention of those delegates made the following Resolution:
That the preceding Constitution be laid before the United States in Congress assembled, and that it is the Opinion of this Convention, that it should afterwards be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the People thereof, under the Recommendation of its Legislature, for their Assent and Ratification; and that each Convention assenting to, and ratifying the Same, should give Notice thereof to the United States in Congress assembled. Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Convention, that as soon as the Conventions of nine States shall have ratified this Constitution, the United States in Congress assembled should fix a Day on which Electors should be appointed by the States which shall have ratified the same, and a Day on which the Electors should assemble to vote for the President, and the Time and Place for commencing Proceedings under this Constitution.
That after such Publication the Electors should be appointed, and the Senators and Representatives elected: That the Electors should meet on the Day fixed for the Election of the President, and should transmit their Votes certified, signed, sealed and directed, as the Constitution requires, to the Secretary of the United States in Congress assembled, that the Senators and Representatives should convene at the Time and Place assigned; that the Senators should appoint a President of the Senate, for the sole Purpose of receiving, opening and counting the Votes for President; and, that after he shall be chosen, the Congress, together with the President, should, without Delay, proceed to execute this Constitution.
By the unanimous Order of the Convention
W. JACKSON Secretary.”
By that Resolution, it should be clear that the members of that college so convened resolved that their work was to be presented to both the Legislatures of each of the Union’s States and to the AoC Congress. At that time, the Congress, so designated, was the Congress formed by the AoC; which is clear by reference due to the fact that the Constitutional Republic’s was not yet seated; and, that is exactly what happened. First, the Constitution was taken to each State where they followed the proper procedure for ratification. Some of them showed concerns over the lack of limitations against potential governmental abuse; thus, they called for a reconvening of what they now called a Constitutional Convention. Check it out what happened next:
“ *Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York,
on Wednesday the fourth of March,
one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution:
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz!.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. . . .
FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG
Speaker of the House of Representatives. JOHN ADAMS, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate.
JOHN BECKLEY, Clerk of the House of Representatives. SAM. A. Otis Secretary of the Senate.
* On, September 25, 1789, the Congress of the United States transmitted to the state legislatures twelve proposed amendments, two of which, having to do with Congressional representation and Congressional pay, were not adopted. The remaining ten amendments became the Bill of Rights.”
Notice the heading: “Congress of the United States begun and held in the City of New-York.” Did you get that? New-York, is not where the Constitution’s formative college was convened; that was in Philadelphia. New-York is where the AoC Congress was seated. Now, pay particular attention to the section of the Resolution the nation’s Congress published at the paragraph beginning “ARTICLES” and notice that it refers to the fact that they are acting “pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution”, otherwise known as the AoC. Now, note the “*” in the header next to the word “Congress”, followed by the note at the bottom of the quote (all from the original). From the content of the comment, and contrary to popular opinion, we can see that the AoC Congress did, in fact, reconvene for the purpose of constructing this Resolution. Many of the States had already ratified the new Constitution, even without what became known as the Bill of Rights.
Finally, though the AoC, at Article XIII, forbids changes in its own Articles absent unanimous agreement between all of the States; which agreement had to be made by the State Legislatures instead of just by Congress, the AoC made no contest against those States divesting themselves from the AoC and ratifying an entirely new Constitution made, “in Order to form a more perfect Union”. In fact, a plain reading of the AoC's Articles IX and X authorized such actions with the assent of nine States (even when not in session) and by a majority when in session; which is exactly why said Convention issued their resolve to voice their legal opinion on that very point.
The bottom-line: the Constitution of the United States of America was lawfully ratified by the States and that lawful ratification was lawfully authorized by the AoC seated Congress as well; at least in its last sitting on, September 25, 1789.
Our Constitutional Republic form of government acknowledges that and notes that it merely acts as sovereign nation through its authorized use of its limited powers granted to it through the collective sovereign powers of its sovereign people. Make no mistake in that last statement—the United States of America is a sovereign nation; however, as a matter of law, that fact is the result of that collective sovereignty and not the result of some governmental power to rule over the people. Our Constitution grants no such power to the government; in fact, it forbids such a thing from ever happening (see: Amendment 9 & 10).
Team Law’s purpose is to help people learn how to learn the law firsthand from their own hands-on study of the law itself, along with its language and history. Our intention in that purpose is to help people discover, firsthand, the hands-on experience of so studying the law itself as the only way people can truly learn the law well enough to know they are right when they follow and/or apply the law.
It is not enough to study current statutes, policies, practices and governmental procedures. To be successful in actually learning the law so we can apply it, each of us must follow the Standard for Review to truly discover not only the meaning and intent of the law, but the authority behind it as well. The process is actually so simple virtually anyone can do it—and all of us are required so to do.
Since Tim Turner was imprisoned for his acts related to his management of the so called “People’s Republic”, his claim to fame has diminished; however, many of the people that supported his movement continue to suffer from many of the errors promoted by that movement; not the least of which is the idea that the organization he allegedly started (“The People’s Republic”) has merit—it does not! Tim Turner errantly claimed that he was the President of “The People’s Republic”; which claim raises several important questions that must be resolved to understand the actual nature of said claim and to resolve the inevitable myths continue to spring up around the nation as a result of it:
What is this so called: “The Peoples’ Republic”, allegedly led by, Tim Turner?
Answer: It is merely a business known by that name.
How did Tim Turner allegedly become its, so called: “President”?
Answer: He simply claimed the title as he took over the organization (more on this later).
Does Turner’s, so called, “Republic” in any way refer to an actual Republic styled government or to the government of the United States of America?
Answer: No! Not in any way!
It was neither formed by consent of the people nor under authority of law;
It has no governmental nature whatsoever;
It is neither a corporate form (like Corp. U.S.–DCOA) nor an
original jurisdiction (constitutional) form of government.
Though those are Team Law’s answers to those questions, Team Law’s purpose is to help people learn how to learn the law so that they can learn how to apply the law properly for themselves and not have to rely on any third party for that purpose. Therefore, on review of this topic, let’s also resolve the following questions:
- How can you know these answers are accurate and not merely opinion?
- How can you know the truth about such organizations and their threat potential to you and/or to our nation?
- That is to say, when it comes to people/organizations/etc. making such claims, how can you know (for yourself) what the truth is?
- Certainly, the people related to Tim Turner’s mythological "Republic" believe they are following something more than a myth. So how can you know the truth regarding the myth?
- Is it a myth, as we have reported here; or, is it something else?
Team Law helps people learn how to answer all such questions by learning and following our “Standard for Review”; by doing so, regarding any such matter, you can discover the truth for yourself from your own firsthand research.
Accordingly, let’s follow the “Standard for Review” and to discover the historical truth behind this myth:
by following the “Standard for Review” we first gain an understanding of the historical source for all authority was man’s creation wherein we received, from God, dominion, agency and possession; the three elements that define “sovereignty”; respectively, as mankind came together to form governments they formed an agreement (treaty) through which they each granted the government the authority to administrate the government with a limited capacity of the collective sovereignty of the people. So it was with, the Constitution for the United States of America, was used by the people to form our nation’s original jurisdiction Constitutional Republic form of government.
However, that process does not hold true for this thing called “People’s Republic”, made by Tim Turner and his followers. So, let’s take a look at the events that took place before Tim Turner appeared on the scene in the formation of their mythological People’s Republic. We go back years ago to a phone call Team Law received from Arizona’s former original jurisdiction Governor (now retired); wherein, the retired Governor claimed: “I have been contacted by this group of people that has the same intention Team Law has for reseating the original jurisdiction government; but, instead of starting at the top, with the governors and the President, these guys are doing it from local county government level. They are motivated and they have the resources to get the job done. They want to talk to you; so, you can integrate your work and work together. You need to talk to them and hear what they are doing.”
Though Team Law always looks forward to working with other organizations (to help people learn the law for themselves from their own firsthand study), we often find other organizations difficult to work with because they are often managed by people that are unwilling to either follow the law or to help their people learn how to so follow the law; as it turned out, that was most certainly the case with this group.
Several weeks passed before any of the people from that group called. When they did call, they described the process they were following as: “We contact people all over the country and tell them what is necessary to re-seat their original jurisdiction county government”. Accordingly, they indicated they wanted to get Senator Madsen’s support; as the current presiding Senator in the original jurisdiction national Senate. They wanted him to join them on a conference call.
To put that conference call together, they farmed information from Team Law’s “Restore America!” page to romance several of the original jurisdiction governors to also be on that call. Though several months passed by before that call was made, when the call finally began, the call host cordially opened the call with introductions from a number of the people on the call. We recognized the names and voices of several of the original jurisdiction governors; however, some of the other introductions seemed quite odd because some of the people on the line officially identified themselves as: “Postmasters” and “County Recorders”. As the call proceeded, the call host announced: “Senator Madsen is on this call and is in full support of what we are doing.” They so introduced him and let him have some time to greet the people and acknowledge his support.
With that introduction, Senator Madsen told the listeners: “Though I always support people learning and lawfully applying the law; I have not been appraised with how this group intends on doing what they propose to do; thus, though I support learning and lawfully applying the law, even to re-seat our original jurisdiction government, I cannot pledge my support for this, or any, group until I can confirm their plans are both legal and lawful.”
As the call proceeded, it became apparent that the parties leading this group were alleging that the Articles of Confederation were still actively in full effect as the basic law of the land; and, they were alleging that because the Constitution was not working those Articles remained as the peoples’ control over the law and government. That allegation was certainly false; at least, for all of the reasons we showed in Myth 23.
To help these people understand the truth, the Senator corrected that allegation providing legal support similar to what Team Law presented in Myth 23. However, revealing those facts seemed to irritate the group’s leaders. Denying the historical facts relevant to their allegation, they passed over the Senator’s objections and proceeded on to what they called: “electing governors”.
What followed was something we could never imagine was possible among thinking people; and, it certainly found no support either from the laws of our land or from the Senator. Their process became apparent as those self-proclaimed Postmasters (alleging themselves to be: “United States Postmasters”) and “Recorders” (alleging themselves to be: “County Recorders”) began confirming their appointments to similar offices and to the office of State Governor (which was done merely by allegation along with the agreement of three such so called postmasters). When people on the call questioned the authority for appointing such “Postmasters”and “Recorders”, they were told: “They were appointed by the highest authority in the land.” That answer was not sufficient for some of the people on the call; so, they pursued the matter further. Their final answer was: “We got that authority from God—the highest authority in the land.”
We stand with the most avid followers of our Creator recognizing the fact that God is the highest authority period. However, any such allegation is wide open for a challenge due to the fact that it will be next to impossible for the party making such an allegation to prove their source. Nonetheless, such an allegation is also quite easy to disprove in most situations because God follows law and never contradicts Himself. Therefore, given the fact that Team Law’s “Standard for Review” provides the means for understanding any relationship, at this point let’s follow that “Standard for Review” to debunk that allegation by examining the authority from its source and see how it applies to the laws and to the facts of this matter as alleged.
History confirms the theory that God always follows the same pattern for passing authority to man [when He wants to provide guidance to the masses (those willing to listen to and follow God)]; accordingly, He always works through Prophets (etc). Further, when mankind was created we were granted “Dominion, Agency and Possession” (the three elements that define “sovereignty”). Man was then charged (commanded) with the responsibility linked to the use of that authority:
“Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.” Genesis 1:28
Some people believe that scripture is merely telling us to have children; however, there is a lot more to it than that; suffice it to say (for our purposes of this article), we are only citing that reference for the purpose of showing the facts that:
- On creation, man was given sovereign authority from his Creator;
- Man was accordingly charged with the responsibility for its use; and,
- Man was in that charge told to control that which he so created.
Accordingly, as man went out into the world and began to form civil societies they used that very authority to form governments. To provide authority to such governments, the people granted a portion of their individual sovereign authority to those governments such that the government, so formed, could function. Thus, as those governing bodies were so formed, the provision for authority in such governing bodies was written in documents like our Constitution for the United States of America.
However, at this point, it is important to remember that the people themselves are limited in the authority they possess. Therefore, to understand what follows, you must understand what “sovereignty” is and how “sovereign authority” is passed to governments. Respectively, history shows God supports man’s obligation to obey, honor and sustain the law (starting with His own laws and continuing on through man’s laws). Therefore, it is becoming upon man to learn and apply the law. Respectively, turning against the law is contrary both to the teachings of God’s prophets (as revealed in scripture) and to the chain of authority God gave man.
Now, let’s compare that source for authority to what the followers of this myth were promoting to see if their allegation is a reasonable and lawful process. Where the Constitution provides for mail services; the laws that were passed accordingly provide for how a “Postmaster” is to acquire that office. With surety, given that such a process already rightfully exists, God does not contradict the law and authority He already gave us to separately grant a conflicting authority to another party. That is simply not His way. Instead, He holds us accountable for knowing the laws we have allowed to be passed through the authority He already gave us; just as He holds us accountable to the laws and commandments He gave us; again:
“Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.” Genesis 1:28
Thus, on that conference call they were appointing these alleged postmasters and recorders contrary to every law already in place for that very purpose. We were a bit shocked by that; but, then they had someone say he was willing to be a Governor in one of the States (of the Union of the United States of America). Once he announced that, they had a minimum of three of these so called “Postmasters” from around the country acknowledge that announcement. Then they verified whether they had one of there similarly (by whim) appointed “Recorders” available for the State in question and if they did, that “Recorder” recorded that election and that was it, they claimed that guy was the new Governor! According to them, though the parties needed to yet send the appropriate paperwork around to confirm the election/appointment with what they called the appropriate documentation, when it all was so recorded, they alleged that guy would be what they called the Governor for that State.
Wow! We can tell you, the Senator was appalled at the bogus process. He told them that what they had done was absurd and that no, they could have no support from him. The man (Sam) that was the head of the movement was on the call and responded to the Senator. In the discussion that ensued that “man in charge” became furious and blurted out that his intention was to start a Civil War against the United States government (Corp. U.S.) claiming: “The sooner the better.” With that, our Senator announced that he could take no more of that kind of ridiculousness and he recommended that anyone that valued his (the Senator’s) opinion would join him in leaving the call along with any support that may have been swayed towards that organization due to their presence.
Thus, anyone can easily verify that the people followed God’s law (as noted at the top of this article—Myth 24) to set in place their authority, in law, to provide for the process to lawfully seat such officials in our actual government. Therefore, the argument that Tim Turner’s, his followers or any other person can, by any other means, place such officials in office is obviously without lawful merit. Respectively, committing such an unlawful act (as Tim Turner later did when he claimed that he was the President of the Republic) constitutes treason.
As time passed, we started to have quite a few people contacting us, asking about our Land Patent Sandwich service, telling us they had heard about us from Tim Turner at a meeting where he praised Team Law and our work. They said that he claimed to have worked with Team Law and supported our work. Considering the fact that we had never heard of him before we started hearing such reviews, Turner’s claims were false; thus, we found those reports quite strange. Accordingly, we started to look into what Tim Turner and his organization were doing and discovered Tim Turner had taken over the organization that sponsored the aforementioned conference call; and, as its leader they continued to spread their effort around the country through seminars and meetings with many people. Like the Pied Piper, Tim Turner seemed to be spreading tales to lure people into placing their allegiance with him. However, though he professed the intent of restoring our nation’s original jurisdiction government a review of what he was proposing to do proved his intent was to do nothing of the kind.
Still, because so many of his words and phrases (like: “original jurisdiction government”) were taken directly from Team Law’s unique work it became quite clear that Tim Turner was praising Team Law to make it appear like he (and his organization) was working on doing what Team Law had done. At the very least, such a behavior would make it appear to news media pundits as if we were all working on the same cause of reseating our original jurisdiction government. However nothing could be further from the truth. Thus, as we approached 2012 it became apparent that Team Law would have to expose the Tim Turner myth with this article (Myth 24).
Over time Turner’s organization posted a website to spread their myth. Of course, by so doing, they provided us with evidence of their actual intent; in spite of their Pied Piper’s rhetoric.
When we first looked at their website, we found that much of what was written there had been copied from some old writings said retired Governor from Arizona had written while he was working with Team Law; some of that work Team Law’s Trustee had reviewed with that retired governor over ten years ago showing our disagreement with the same.
As time passed, their website changed a bit and became more focused on Tim Turner and his Pied Piper style of romancing people away from the truth, while staying close enough to the truth to appear genuine; that is, genuine if the reader or listener was unwilling to study out the facts for themselves. most of which sound a lot like those espoused in Myth 21 and seem designed for capturing an audience but remained absent any real content. However, from that time until we wrote this article their website has stabilized on some pages that appear to be the basis of their promotion. It is upon those pages that we will focus the balance of this article, in an effort to finally debunk this myth and show how obvious and malicious the movement some are calling the “Tim Turner movement” and others are sadly calling “The Republic”.
On their website and publications we see this header:
Republic for the united States of America
Now, notice the spelling both on the “seal” and on the header. You might imagine that header is referring to the name of our nation. Some people actually believe the name of our country is spelled like that. [Team Law debunked that myth at: Myth 13.] So, what is being proposed by such a title? It seems like they are promoting the formation of something they are calling “Republic” as an altogether new thing proposed for the States of America—if they can get those States united. Exactly what they are proposing is not clear. However, given that Tim Turner has allegedly brought an action in the Hague; whatever it is he is hoping to romance the people into, it must include an acknowledgment that the Hague has authority over the sovereign people of this nation. That right there would be enough for us to stop looking into their offer. Yet, so many people have responded to them that we must here continue with this review.
The rest of that implied seal/crest has a graphic that is not too clear but looks sufficiently familiar to people that they seem to accept it as an official governmental seal without knowing more of its origins. That is not something we would be willing to do. We have reviewed the documents this organization provides for those that are convinced to join their cause. They have people devoting all they have to this organization. The language of such documents could easily be acknowledged as treasonous. It is interesting that though officers of Corp. U.S. have done some pretty nasty things to some of the people in this country; they do not require you to ever sign such an all inclusive document that would so jeopardize your life and or your family. This is definitely a Pied Piper no rational thinking man would ever follow.
In fact, it is apparent that people are leaving the Turner organization in mass. That effect is what we expected from the beginning because so much of what Turner promotes obviously has no basis in law, history or fact. Accordingly we welcome those people to come to Team Law and learn how to learn the law for yourselves firsthand; so that, no such Piper can ever sway you from the truth regardless of how good they sound. Of course, that is something that would also benefit those that follow after similar Pipers (like such a Øbama) as well.
The bottom line, we the people must learn the law along with our history so that such people cannot get away with such deceptions in the future.
Please be aware, careful review of all such topics is necessary to discover truth and or to debunk bogus claims. That is why we always follow our “Standard for Review” as we study the law and or any other relationship. We are quite concerned over what we have discovered after only a short review of Tim Turner's activities and it gives us great concern for the people that have been swayed by his rhetoric. Accordingly, we challenge anyone that has found any interest in Tim Turner's so called Republic for the united States of America, be cautious and make sure you follow our “Standard for Review” and do a diligent study of the facts and the law related to what they claim. Such a review will take you on a more correct path for discovering the truth about predatory marketers and their bogus claims.
Allegations coming out of the Turner movement now indicate that Tim Turner died; however, their rumor has it that his brother is continuing to spread the Turner myth, acting as if he is Tim Turner. We have not confirmed that rumor; it simply seems to follow the pattern of this organization; accordingly we noted that rumor expecting that by so doing we might discover whether it is accurate or not.
The latest breaking news/rumors from that camp is that whoever is acting as Tim Turner was prosecuted and convicted of several federal crimes for which he will be serving time in federal prison. With that most people that were following these people have since discovered that their ship is sinking—time to bail out.
Again, the bottom line is: much of what we see that is going on in the United States today is taking place as a direct result of the people's willingness to follow any wind of mythology that sounds good to them for the moment while they remain ignorant of the law and our history. Yet the facts remain:
- All authority in government comes from the individual people as they come together through our constitutions to form our government.
- Corp. U.S. is a private corporation operating under the control of interests foreign to both the people and our Constitutional Republic form of government.
- Corp. U.S. controls the United States of America as if it were a communistic regime; using the voluntary Social Security cardholder relationship; wherein the people, through private contracts become subject to Corp. U.S.
Thus, it remains becoming upon the people to hold the government accountable to the limitations of authority we so provided them. Accordingly, the only way we can resolve the problems of our day is, we must learn the law and use it to subdue that which we created to limit the government to the express limits the law binds them to. Respectively, it is time for all of us to resolve to learn the law so we can learn how to apply it; and then, apply it to save our nation through the proper and lawful application of the law.
Of course, Team Law can help; that is the very purpose for our existence. Accordingly, we welcome your support as we now move towards reseating the original jurisdiction Electoral College this year (2012). To that end we can use all of the support we can get.
Final Note: We believe most of these matters to be self-evident, yet we provide them so that you will take another look at the materials and sources you may have been studying from. We do not say these other presenters are bad people, they are simply not following the facts, law, history and simple logic and or language. We hope you continue to seek after the truth and that you stop studying patterns that will leave you impotent and financially crippled.
In the final analysis, you have to decide what you are going to do. We cannot share the intricacies of our solutions to anyone other than Team Law beneficiaries, for that reason many case sites and evidences that would otherwise prove these points beyond question are not presented here. We have only presented the basics here to provoke your own study and research and to provide you with a second logical opinion.
One of the most common comments people make about Team Law after they start working with us is, “This is the first time we were able to see the whole picture and know how to move forward.” One of the best solutions to the abundance of information out there is to follow the admonitions of the Paul, the Apostle, “That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;” and of Davey Crocket, “Be sure your right and then go ahead.”
If you would like to see more myths unraveled, report them to us on Team Law’s Open Forum.
( top )
All information on this site is provided for educational purposes only, with all rights reserved.
Use it at your own risk. Team Law never provides legal, financial or any other form of advice.
All materials on or available through this site are under Copyright © 1996-2013, and may not be reproduced,
except as noted, without the written consent of Team Law’s Trustee.