:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

Please note:
Pastor Butch Paugh, of: GNC Radio Network’s: “Call to Decision” radio show, will interview: Eric W. Madsen, Team Law’s Trustee, this:
Saturday, July. 8, 2017, at: 6:00 PM (MT).
Call In Line: (855) 242-8824,
Listen Line: (605)562-4040.

Our new Free Conference Call schedule is every: Monday, Wednesday & Friday morning from:
8:00 – 9:00 AM (Mountain Time).

Call: (857) 232-0158; use the Conference Access Code: 110045.

Though our Trustee is otherwise out of the office this week (July 10, 2017 – July 14, 2017), our Trustee will continue to hold Conference calls
at their regularly scheduled times; with one exception: there will be no conference call Monday, July 17, 2017.

Join us on, and invite your friends to, our next Conference Call!

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;
use this link for more: contact information.

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

Challenges to court jurisdiction—

This forum is for topics not listed below.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Rickoff
Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Wednesday June 15th, 2011 3:21 pm MDT

Challenges to court jurisdiction—

Postby Rickoff » Monday July 4th, 2011 1:57 pm MDT

Within the topic: Land Owner vs. citizen, regarding challenges to a court's jurisdictional authority, Admin wrote:Our experience in the courts proves that most of the courts will disregard this principal unless you can provide a reasonable and articulate challenge of the court’s jurisdiction or your mere “challenge” will not stand. The court will simply respond, “Denied. The court rules, the court has jurisdiction of this matter over these parties in this venue.” Then they proceed and if you are not prepared to prove your challenge in a manner that they recognize as proper, your “challenge” will lose.
I live in the state of Maine, and see that the current original jurisdiction Governor of this state has mounted two such challenges in court and has lost both of them. The first case was regarding a charge of driving after suspension of operator's license, for which the Governor was tried and convicted in District Court. The Governor appealed that decision to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which upheld the lower court's ruling, citing in their decision the following:
Maine Supreme Judicial Court wrote:Contrary to [the Governor's] contentions, the court had jurisdiction to consider the case, the prohibition on operating a motor vehicle after suspension works no deprivation of constitutional rights, and the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; see State v. Hughes, 2004 ME 141, ¶ 7, 863 A.2d 266, 269.

In the second case, the state of Maine filed suit against the Governor for failure to pay state income tax for the years 2004 through 2007. This case was investigated by Maine Revenue Services' Criminal Investigations Unit and prosecuted by the Attorney General’s Office. In his defense, the Governor claimed that, as the original jurisdiction Governor of the state, he was not subject to Maine state income tax laws or the jurisdiction of the state's courts. The court decided against the Governor, sentenced him to 21 days in jail, and ordered him to pay $11,388 in restitution for unpaid taxes. In a press release commenting on the case, Maine Attorney General Janet Mills stated the following:
The reporter wrote:[The Governor's] claim of being Governor did not insulate him from his obligations under the tax laws. Even if he had in fact been Governor of the State, he would still have to pay his taxes.

From the above two cases, it would appear that the Governor either failed to provide a suitable explanation for his defense claims, or that, if in fact he did produce evidence to properly back his claims, the court disallowed or disavowed the defense evidence submitted. I am not quite sure as to what the actual case may be in this regard, as the decisions do not state anything about the defense evidence submitted, and only state the Governor's overall contentions.

At this point I am wondering how we can actually use the law to take our country back. It does not seem that success could be likely if we went through the corp US court system. If my understanding is correct, there is currently no municipal, state, or federal court in this nation that is currently operating under original jurisdiction authority. Even the SCOTUS is not qualified, for even though the justices are appointed to life terms, there are no existing justices who were appointed by non-corp US presidents. Therefore, in planning to take our country back from corp US, it seems that after we reseat an original jurisdiction government, our government would need to reestablish a court system having proper authority to hear the case against corp US. I may have somehow missed this explanation, but in searching for it on the Team Law site found nothing concerning this phase of the plan. I would appreciate it if Team Law admin could clarify this. Thank you.

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

Re: Challenges to court jurisdiction

Postby Admin » Monday July 4th, 2011 6:02 pm MDT

:h: Rickoff:
The biggest problem with the situation you described is people (even governors) all too often go into court believing they understand a thing when in fact they do not. The cases you provided as examples upon which you based your inquiry contain perfect examples of our point. So, let’s look at some of the presuppositions you made in your inquiry and at some of the errors made by the party that participated in those court cases to discover what went wrong.

First of all, the quote from Admin with which you began your inquiry made it quite clear that if you do not “provide a reasonable and articulate challenge of the court’s jurisdiction or your mere “challenge” will not stand.”

Immediately after presenting that quote your inquiry made the following presupposition: “…the current original jurisdiction Governor of this state has mounted two such challenges in court…”.

However, as we review each of the cases you provided we find that the subject matter of those cases (one dealing with a suspended driver’s license and the other being a property tax matter) have nothing whatsoever to do with the original jurisdiction Governor’s Office; thus, it cannot possibly be the Governor that was so participating in either of those cases; as you suggested.

More to the point, we expect the actual party charged with the violations (that so charged those court cases with jurisdictional authority to proceed) was someone that had, at one time, filed for such a driver’s license and/or contracted for the obligation to pay the respective property taxes. Accordingly, if the party that stood to defend (in those cases) claimed he was an original jurisdiction Governor, such a claim would have no merit in either a traffic court case or in a property tax court case. Accordingly, we agree with each of those respective courts.

Regarding the original jurisdiction Governor’s office in your State:
Though many of the original jurisdiction governor’s offices around the country are filled with people that have been granted Team Law Beneficiary endowments, the man serving in that office, in your State, is not a Team Law beneficiary. Thus, he did not contact Team Law regarding his intentions defend himself in those cases. Had he done so, we would have informed him that such a defense would be foolhardy. Appealing such a matter even adds insult to injury; especially when he alleged that because he serves as the original jurisdiction Governor, he should not be obligated to pay the property taxes he already agreed to. Such an argument is simply ludicrous!

Though we are not aware of the specifics of the cases you referred to, a simple review of the nature of such charges in general will show the errors in such defenses.
  1. Driving under a suspended license:
    The most common error defendants of such charges make is the supposition that they are no longer bound by the terms of such a license. Such suspensions limit the ongoing privilege so licensed. Thus, the only questions germane to the court are:
    1. Is the Defendant a party that had the licensed privilege suspended?
    2. Does the evidence presented in trial indicate that the Defendant continued to exercise that privilege during the time of said suspension?
    If the answer to each of those questions is: “Yes.” Then, the charge stands.
  2. Failed to pay Property Tax:
    Similarly to the suspended driving charge, the only questions germane to the court trying this charge are:
    1. Is the Defendant a party that has a liability to pay a property tax?
    2. Does the evidence presented in trial indicate that the Defendant failed to pay the property taxes so owed?
    If the answer to each of those questions is: “Yes.” Then, the charge stands.
Respectively, the office of Governor does not obviate such obligations; thus, any argument raising such an issue is both frivolous and off-point.

Having presented those cases, you then wondered how we can use the law to win our country back. The answer to such pondering is given by first learning the law. In the cases in point, it should be quite obvious that attempting to use the office of Governor to obviate your own private obligations will not work. Then again, one should not expect it would. That is neither the purpose nor the function of the Governor’s Office.

However, if you were to read the article published on our Governor’s Corner page, that does describe why we need to seat the original jurisdiction governors. And, that purpose goes a long way to helping us to take our government back. On the other hand, it should be obvious that in order to take our government back we first have to learn what it is and how it works. Then, we have to seat the officials in the seats of our original jurisdiction government; first, the governors, then the national Senate, then the Electoral College, followed by the President of the United States of America. At that point, if we exclusively follow the law to accomplish those tasks, our government will be sufficiently reseated such that it can once again begin to function and lawfully exercise its natural controls of law on Corp. U.S.

At that point in time, we will have accomplished our original intent. Of course, such a process is impossible if the people (you) do not honor their responsibility to learn and apply the law.

You presented your inquiry in the face of someone that had been elected as an original jurisdiction governor that then seems to have attempted to use that office to remove his obligations to unrelated responsibilities. Should that have worked for him, we would call that: graft, political favoritism and/or the effect of a title of nobility. Such offices of government cannot lawfully be used in such a manner.

Had your governor been a Team Law beneficiary and properly used Team Law’s support he could have easily learned how to prevail in both of those situations; however, better still, he would have most likely avoided both of those situations in the first instance. Considering the costs he had to face in those situations, had he instead put the expenses he had to face in those cases into a Way of Kings™ asset protection system, he would have been nominated as a Team Law beneficiary in the process and he would have had that support. Of course, the old adage also remains true: “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink!”

Your inquiry then followed an accurate path recognizing the necessity for reseating the original jurisdiction judicial system as well. That is one of the functions of the President of the United States of America and once that office is reseated the respective governors of the original jurisdiction States will also need to reseat their respective court judges; in accord with, the provisions of the existent laws as they are provided in the original jurisdiction. The clarification of that process is quite obvious in our laws.

Team Law can help people learn how to learn the law and learn how to lawfully apply it. In fact, that is exactly what we do. Accordingly, we welcome your support.

It is about time that we all stop responding to Corp. U.S. and to the corporate states with foolhardy responses like the ones exemplified in the two actions you referred to in your inquiry. We cannot go halfway and simply learn that we need to reseat our original jurisdiction government. That is not enough. We also must stop acting like the taxpayer (Social Security Administration created trust [see: Myth 22]) is one in the same person as our natural selves.
The bottom line: we must follow the Standard for Review, and:
  1. Learn who we are;
  2. Learn God’s laws;
  3. Honor our covenants with God (and that which follows);
  4. Learn our history and our laws (paying particular attention to the chain of authority man recieved from God and used to form governments, bind contracts and build an inheritance);
  5. Apply the same (authority, laws, etc.) in all we do;
  6. Continue through the end.
Team Law can help!

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

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Rickoff
Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Wednesday June 15th, 2011 3:21 pm MDT

Re: Challenges to court jurisdiction

Postby Rickoff » Tuesday July 5th, 2011 1:31 pm MDT

Thanks, admin, I appreciate your reply. While the second case actually dealt with income tax, rather than property tax, evasion, the points you make are correct ones and are what I expected I would hear. I thank you for clarifying that the plan for reseating original jurisdiction state and federal government does in fact include procedures for renewing the judicial system from the top down, which I correctly perceived to be a necessity.

Best regards, Rickoff :)

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

Re: Challenges to court jurisdiction

Postby Admin » Wednesday July 6th, 2011 5:42 pm MDT

:h: Rickoff:
Oops! We apologize for the assumption regarding the second case. We made the assumption because it only seemed logical that a party might incorrectly imagine they could get away with avoiding State issued property taxes if they were the Governor. Certainly no such thing is so avoidable for such a cause. We never imagined that a party could be so foolish as to imagine they could avoid assessed income taxes because of their standing as governor. It simply makes no sense!

Again, we have enjoyed our conversations with the Governor and find him to be a very personable fellow, willing to serve. We expect that is why he was elected. It is too bad that he is not a Team Law beneficiary; because had he been one we doubt seriously that he would have made such huge mistakes in his defenses against those charges.

Of course, when it comes to reseating the original jurisdiction government, Team Law has only promoted following the law as it clearly stands. The process for the people to follow to so reseat and preserve the official seats of our government is quite clear. And, as noted, the process for returning our original jurisdiction government (State and national) back into control over Corp. U.S. and our nation can only be lawfully accomplished by learning and applying that law. Accordingly the plan for that accomplishment includes, but is not limited to, the reseating of all three branches of our government (Administrative, legislative and Judicial). When the offices are all vacant the necessity for a “jumpstart” requires that we:
  1. Find the electors from each State that are eligible to both sit in the Electoral College and elect a Governor for their respective State;
  2. Lawfully elect and seat the governors;
    • Respectively each governors has lawful authority to appoint any vacant seat including (but not limited to) the two original jurisdiction national senators for their State;
    • Thus, once the Governors are all seated:
  3. The Governors need to timely appoint the respective Senators to fill the original jurisdiction Senate;
    • Of course, until we have the Electoral College seated in a presidential election year, we will not need the Senate (for without the President and the judicial system in place, the Senate will remain almost useless except for its capacity to confirm elections form the Electoral College); thus, before we want the Governors to seat the Senate, we need to get the Electoral College ready to elect a President (the next opportunity for such an election is in November of 2012).
  4. Seat the Electoral College and timely hold a lawful election of the President of the United States of America in its original jurisdiction.
  5. Once elected and lawfully seated, the President acquires all of the responsibilities of his office including (but not limited to):
    1. The office of the Commander in Chief of the military;
    2. The administrative authority to seat the Supreme Court; and,
    3. The administrative authority to reseat any vacant administrative office (in accord with the needs of his office);
  6. After the President’s seating, respective effects would take place at the State level. Such effects could not have been reasonably been accomplished at the State level until they had the support of the reseated national government in its original jurisdiction. With that national support, the respective states can resume their function in a similar fashion.
Though this list does not go into any great detail, it follows the process set out in law for the restoration of our original jurisdiction government under a situation such as the people face today. No organization, other than Team Law, has presented any hope for actually accomplishing such a solution. Others tout seemingly lofty statements to rally the people around their marketing; but, on close review they merely promote anarchy and the destruction of Corp. U.S.

However, if we are to save our country, our states and our style of living (that meaning: food on our shelves, flushing toilets, power, fuel and working monetary and economic systems) we cannot simply remove or replace either Corp. U.S. or the corporate states. Instead, we must learn the law and bring them back under the control of the law. Reseating our original jurisdiction governments (federal and state) does that. The original jurisdiction governments created the corporate bodies that are today acting as if they were our governments. Thus, reseating the original jurisdiction governments returns them to the control over those corporate bodies. Calling the debts they owe us will take care of securing that control over those corporate bodies even while they continue to function. Thus, reseating the original jurisdiction government will not interfere with the overall effect of the things that keep food on the table, funds in the bank and the fuel and power necessary to keep life working.

The original jurisdiction government will return to its constitutionally set monetary standard.
The true nature of Corp. U.S.’ control over the people through Corp. U.S.’ control over their Social Security Administration created trusts (the taxpayers) will become obvious to one and all (with its effects—see: The Seduction); and, we will return to a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Of course, none of that can happen if the people do not learn the law and respectively apply it!
And, that is what Team Law is all about: we help the people learn how to learn the law so they can learn how to apply it. The is the very reason we support the original jurisdiction gubernatorial elections and that which follows.

That is also why the agent provocateurs are now promoting the support of similar sounding elections [however, they do not support following the laws of our nation to accomplish those elections. Some of them go so far as to imply that such elections can be avoided by going to the United Nations Court at The Hague, in the Netherlands and expressing claims. Such claims are treasonous! If the proponents of such actions were not Corp. U.S. agents they would be prosecuted for treason for merely making such ridiculous claims.] Though, given what Team Law has already accomplished, we never understand why any Team Law beneficiary would ever be looking at such marketer’s offerings, we do understand why those that have not yet discovered that Team Law is worthy of their support may. We have also noted that such agent provocateurs have garnered significant followings because their followers have not reviewed the presentation by following our Standard for Review. We do expect to soon have a Patriot Mythology page addition in the form of a report on Myth 23.

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

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

User avatar
Essential
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 7
Joined: Wednesday April 6th, 2011 8:13 pm MDT

Re: Challenges to court jurisdiction

Postby Essential » Thursday August 4th, 2011 4:19 pm MDT

I really enjoyed reading this post more then posts from the past. Only because I have studied Team Law's materials extensively since 2010, (On their web site and by CD/DVD purchased) am I able to truly appreciate my understanding of "learning the law." This post would be harder for me to understand one year ago. As I understand now, it becomes so clear. Thank You Rickoff, I am from Maine and did not realize that our original jurisdiction governor was not a Team Law beneficiary. I wonder if he has reconsidered?

Thank You for all you do Team Law. I look forward to many years of communication and learning. :cheers:
Essential


Return to “Miscellaneous Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest