:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

With the return of our Trustee, we restarted our morning conference calls on: June 12, 2017.
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.

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^:

Default them every time

This forum is for topics not listed below.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Spielz
Registered
Posts: 3
Joined: Sunday May 17th, 2009 5:36 pm MDT

Default them every time

Postby Spielz » Wednesday May 20th, 2009 7:25 pm MDT

For the most part most demands made on the alleged entity created to match ones name is done because we have not denied the alleged entity. Being new to this I have found acquiescence in most disputes shifts the burden of proof and the accused has to prove his/her innocents. Affidavit, default notice, default judgment usually does it. My question is- Is this accurate?

I believe in paying for information as i have with another site over 600.00. What I have learned from the last is. To get details about the membership, What does it cover? Child support issues, Tax issues, etc. Is this info available and I just missed it.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1570
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Default them every time

Postby Admin » Thursday May 21st, 2009 10:02 am MDT

:h: Spielz:
Though we appreciate the thought that must have gone into the presuppositions your first statement made, we do not agree with its implied conclusion.

Thus, to diagnose the meaning of your statement we must first remove the presupposed allegations, which referred to, “the alleged entity”. Because you acknowledged said “alleged entity” was “created to match ones name”, if we accept for the moment that said entity is the person the Social Security Administration created by reserving ownership of the Social Security card when they delivered it to its receiver asking the receiver if they were willing to hold said card until its owner wanted it returned (see Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole and Myth 22), and we accept the fact that said receiver, as per that request, voluntarily accepted the responsibility and accordingly voluntarily committed a signature act either on or with said card, then we must recognize that the facts prove that person is not an “alleged entity”; rather, it is a Trust that was created as an agent of its Creator.

Thus, the nature of that relationship defines it was not the result of acquiescence; rather, it was the result of one or more knowing willing voluntary acts. Accordingly, attempting to “deny” that trust or its existence would be a waste of effort, given all of the existent evidence that proves the existence of the entity and your voluntary participation with it.

The fact that a party fails to do the necessary due diligence to understand what they are getting into in such a relationship does not discount the facts of the relationship, which include but are not limited to:
  1. The Social Security Administration fully and publicly disclosed the nature of the relationship in their offer; and,
  2. You knew or should have known what you were doing by accepting the same.
Thus, any denial of the relationship would border on foolhardy and such a denial could not possibly change anything — accordingly, we disagree with that conclusion.

With that first statement resolved, the balance of the comments based on it become too full of questionable details for us to address them here. Such a review would require a Team Law beneficiary relationship; accordingly, we could pursue such a topic on the Beneficiary Forum.

Regarding your inquiry into a Team Law membership, there is no such thing—we have no members. Still, you can get involved with Team Law as we have repeatedly posted in response to such inquiries. Here is a link to just such a response: How do I join Team Law?

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.

Spielz
Registered
Posts: 3
Joined: Sunday May 17th, 2009 5:36 pm MDT

Re: Default them every time

Postby Spielz » Saturday May 23rd, 2009 7:21 pm MDT

To Admin: Thanks for the response. I believe full disclosure is missing as they hide their intent.

Since the government created the SSN for us to do business under, If you learn your rights and the laws of the land you can make it work for you. Just always remember to reserve your rights though. Remember, government itself tells you the specific uses of the SSN card so if government tries to do more such as bring you in to a foreign jurisdiction due to use of the SSN, call them out on it in a court of law because now you have fraud and misrepresentation of material facts and nondisclosure evidenced.

The same thing applies to the Birth Certificate. You are only required to have one if your baby is "born" in the hospital (delivery room) and you want something from government. Do a natural birth (home birth) and use common law documents and then later on if you need to get a government-issued birth certificate, attach an affidavit behind it reserving your (and the child's) rights. You see, affidavits (notarized affidavits) hold up in court as evidence. See Federal Rules of Evid. Rule 901, 902. Evidence your reservation of rights and argue your rights in court if need be. All law is precise so make the System explain to you how you KNOWINGLY, WILLFULLY and VOLUNTARILY gave up your constitutional rights in order to obtain voluntary benefits under statutory law via duress, menace, coercion, and threat of non-attendance (school, employment, etc.).

User avatar
T.L.I.O.F.
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 10
Joined: Friday August 26th, 2005 9:10 am MDT

Re: Default them every time

Postby T.L.I.O.F. » Friday May 29th, 2009 2:02 pm MDT

Spielz:
Please remember, the people do not have "constitutional rights". The rights of the people are not, and never have been, quantified and/or qualified by any constitution in this country.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1570
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Default them every time

Postby Admin » Saturday June 20th, 2009 12:35 pm MDT

:h: Spielz:
We appreciate the fact that when you think you understand a relationship then learn the truth, it may seem like the other party did not provide full disclosure; the simple reality is they did disclose the following facts:
  1. The Social Security Act of 1935 publicly discloses that the Social Security Administration is an agency of the United States Government.
    • The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 publicly discloses the private corporate nature of the thing now known by trademark as the “United States Government”, we call it Corp. U.S.
  2. The Social Security Act of 1935 also discloses its purpose is “to raise revenue; and for other purposes”.
  3. The SS5 application process for a relationship with the Social Security Administration (hereinafter “SSA”) makes it clear that the party filling out the application does not need to be the one for whom the relationship will be made.
  4. When the Social Security card is delivered, the card itself along with documents in the delivery package make clear the conditions of the relationship that is offered by the SSA; including the following:
    1. The card does not belong to the recipient—rather its ownership is reserved to the United States Government.
    2. The Social Security Administration only asks you to hold the card (in trust) until such time as the SSA or the United States Government wants it back.
    3. The SSA acknowledges that, on delivery, the card is not yet activated and notes that if the recipient of the card is willing to so hold the card they must activate the card with a signature act to secure the agreement.
  5. The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (hereinafter “FICA”) publicly discloses the distribution plan for securing funds from the those that use the cards so held in trust.
  6. Congress clearly reserves the right to change the terms of the distribution designated in FICA
  7. Subsequent amendments to the Social Security Act of 1935 clearly demonstrate the fact that Congress also reserves the right to amend that Act as well.
Accordingly, that seems like, though people do not generally study out the nature of the relationship before they enter into it today, disclosure of its nature was clearly fully provided.

Accordingly, we disagree with the allegation that they hid or did not disclose their intent at the time of the Acts (Social Security Act of 1935 and FICA) or at the time when you agreed to participate in their program.

However, we also note it is self-evident that since those relationships were formed, Corp. U.S. is now demonstrating (through its acts related to the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and the Homeland Security Act) it intends to pervert the Social Security number (et seq.) into a mandatory national identification system—akin to Hitler’s, “Show me your Papers!” system. Thus, it is now more important than ever to learn the law, secure your relationships and hold those using governance powers accountable to the law.

Though the people get involved with the Social Security system so they can meet their expenses as they go through life in America under the Corp. U.S. bankruptcy, we also disagree with the allegation that Corp. U.S. created the system “for us to do business under” (where we assume you used the word “us” to refer to the people. That was neither part of their disclosed intent nor has that been evidenced as part of their intent since the Social Security Act of 1935. The Act neither provides for our “doing business” nor does it limit our private ability to do business. The Act merely provides for the creation of the Social Security system; and, the Social Security system provides for a means for their inspiring people to provide Corp. U.S. with revenue and other assets. Contrarily, that provision definitively excludes you (or us) from doing business under that system. Accordingly, the people must either learn how to do all of their business by and through private contracts or they will not be able to “do business” at all.

We do agree that learning your rights and the law is the path to make the system work and even the path to controlling the system. That is, in fact, exactly why Team Law exists—we help people learn how to self-educate so they can know the law and apply it.

We also disagree with the following allegations:
  1. That the Birth Certificate is required by law anywhere.
    • No man has the authority to require any other person to certify their births, therefore the people cannot get together and collectively grant to government an authority the people do not otherwise possess.
  2. That either Corp. U.S. or the Corp. State is government.
    • Both are privately owned corporations that were created by the actual government. Thus, though they may act for the purpose of carrying out the presupposed needs of government, they themselves are not government. Accordingly, they function and act through contracts not governmental authority.
  3. That the government issues Birth Certificates.
    • The Corp. State that issues such certificates is not the government.
  4. That the system can explain anything.
    • The system does not have the capacity to explain anything—it is merely a system.
  5. That constitution rights exist.
    • As T.L.I.O.F. noted, the Constitution only provided for the formation and control of the government, it does not have the capacity to create or provide rights. Thus, there is no such thing as a “constitutional right”. Further, the Constitution provides no authority to limit or control the people.
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.

Earthicastar
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 5
Joined: Monday April 27th, 2009 11:52 am MDT

Re: Default them every time

Postby Earthicastar » Wednesday July 8th, 2009 10:28 am MDT

I agree that there is disclosure, but full meeting of the minds does not exist in the fact that the terminology is a jargon called 'legalese' and terms such as 'person' are not defined in a common language to mean the same thing. This is misleading at best, whether intended or negligent, a contract would be void, if the language was misleading.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1570
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Default them every time

Postby Admin » Wednesday July 8th, 2009 4:22 pm MDT

:h: Earthicastar:
We disagree. We find no such ‘legaleze’ in the relationship between the parties related to the Social Security Administration or the trusts they form by offering the card. The nature of the relationship is all too simple. They disclose that they reserve the ownership of the card to Corp. U.S.—they accordingly ask if you are willing to so hold the card (in trust)—they inform you that if you are willing to so hold the card the authorized holder must activate the card with a signature (act). If you so accept the card a Trust is formed and that Trust is an agency for Corp. U.S.

Nothing more need be provided to you in law or fact to bind the relationship legally and lawfully.

The simple requirement for you is you knew or should have known the effect of your actions. Everything they did was properly published in the statutes regarding the relationship. Your ignorance of those facts is no excuse. Thus, the contract is clear. You agree to lend your consciousness and physical capacity to the Trust so created so that the card can be held in trust. You agreed so to hold the card until Corp. U.S. determines they want the card returned. That is all.

They compel you to do nothing else with the card.
Your subsequent use of that Trust’s name or Taxpayer Identification Number for any other cause is also your free will and choice. Again, such use also requires that you know or should know the nature of such actions.

They are in no way required to inform you of the consequences of those actions because they are not involved in them. Nonetheless, that Trust will be responsible for any such actions and their consequences regardless of your level of ignorance—again the claim of ignorance is no excuse.

There is nothing misleading about that.

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.

Earthicastar
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 5
Joined: Monday April 27th, 2009 11:52 am MDT

Re: Default them every time

Postby Earthicastar » Thursday July 9th, 2009 9:10 am MDT

Thank you for the response, however, it did not address terms that are misleading such as 'person'.

Are you saying that an 'act' is not part of a legal system or language, ie Social Security Act of 1935?

There are exceptions to every rule. Take 'ignorance of the law' for example: there is a maxim of law that states "The law never requires impossibilities". There are some 2-3 million law books, (no one can seem to say exactly how many), and these so called laws change at a rate that would be impossible for anyone to know entirely, even ones who are highly trained in the law. Therefore the law would be impossible to know, and ignorance is then a very good excuse. I believe the expression 'ignorance is no excuse' therefore only apply to the ones who profess to have been schooled in law, (or legal system', and have taken an oath to adhere strictly to it. thus making ignorance an exception for those who have been provided a common understanding through the government indoctrination system, called public schools, where they were never taught the legal definitions of such terms as 'person', or taught the fact that the US corp is not the government, and that lawyers have a first allegiance to the courts, who are also a subsidiary of this corp.

My research seems to suggest the name of the legal language used by legal professionals, is a language called "legalese". In the Collins English Dictionary (2005) as well as Black's Law Dictionary 8th Ed(2007), this is what i find;

(Collins English Dictionary(2005) legalese: n the conventional language in which legal documents are written;

I would think this definition is written in plain English. Is that the case?

(Blacks Law 8th Ed(2007))legalese: The jargon characteristically used by lawyers, esp. in legal documents"; I would think this definition is written in "legalese"?

This tells me that "Legaleze" is in fact a different language than "Plain English", which anyone, (essentially, everyone on this land called America), would be able to interpret without an attorney who spends 7 years studying this 'foreign language' called "Legaleze"

There doesnt appear to be a definition for "Jargon" in Blacks, so we turn to...

the Plain English Dictionary, the meaning of 'Jargon' warrants definition of a couple more words to get the gist of the meaning-

1. "Jargon: n 1 Specialized language concerned with a particular subject, culture, or profession. 2 language characterized by pretentious vocabulary or meaning 3 gibberish",

This tells me that "Jargon" is a "Specialized language", however I did not know that it could also be 'pretentious' and also means 'gibberish'. Those two words give me an uneasy feeling. I then looked up the word "pretentious"

2. pretentious: 1 making claim to distinction or importance, esp undeservedly 2 ostentatious


I could not find the word "undeservedly" in either book, so i then looked online, and "undeservedly" seems to be synonymous with the word "undeserved".
3. undeservedly: Undeserved: Not merited; unjustifiable or unfair.

Ok so... now these words are definitely giving me an uneasy feeling.
I have taken the Black's Law definition of "Legaleze", and expanded it with the Plain English definition for easier understanding

"Legalese"(original): The jargon characteristically used by lawyers, esp. in legal documents. (Blacks Law 8th Ed)

"Legalese", (expanded): The gibberish characterized by making claim to distinction or importance, esp. not merited; unjustifiable or unfair, used by lawyers, esp. in legal documents.

Can you tell me how it would be considered ignorance of the law that a common woman does not understand such Jargon, or,, 'gibberish'?

Please correct me if i am wrong in assuming the courts are a subsidiary of the US Corp. and if they are not, can you kindly explain to me where they have any authority to hear any matters concerning said Corp.?

thank you

kindest regards,
e*

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1570
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Default them every time

Postby Admin » Tuesday July 21st, 2009 2:43 am MDT

:h: Earthicastar:
Ok. So, we already covered this latest addition regarding definitions in our response to your post in the Land Patent Forum at: Re: Land Patent Use; thus, we now refer you to that response rather than restating that response again here.

That response refers you to the The Cardinal Rule of Definitions, which should help you resolve your misunderstanding of such terms and their usage both in common speech and as various words and phrases may be used in statutory construction.

Accordingly, we do not believe the statutory usage of words like “person” are misleading. Either such usage is defined within the statute or it follows common usage. To know which rule applies, you actually have to read the statute with its definitions or you have to know the common meaning and or the usage of the word in question; following third-party rhetoric regarding the same will provide no useful solutions.

As to the piles of statutory provisions generated by Corp. U.S. and the respective corporate states; what they generate is not law; rather, it is a body of “statutory” adjustments to the terms and conditions of contractual relations supported by those organizations. Accordingly, it is not necessary for anyone to know any more of what lies within that statutory body outside of its particular relevance to you; which is exactly our point, you do not have to understand all of that but you absolutely must know the Law that lies at the basis of all of that or you will not be able to control them with the law, which is the only way to control them.

Accordingly, all of the jargon you have expressed regarding “legalese”, “jargon”, “gibberish”, etc. is off-point to what we have presented and is escaping the simple fact that learning and applying the law is the only way to save our nation or ourselves. That learning of the law must begin with the Standard for Review and accordingly, that requires us to start by learning and applying God’s law in our own lives as the foundation to our study of natural law and only then following that foundation with a study of applicable statutory law. Again, such a study and application of law must be done by each of us personally.

Experience with the process has proven to us that it takes very little time to follow that process respectfully and get to the statutory study. Without following that path, you will have no hope of properly understanding any study of the statutory codes. If you instead attempt to follow after third-party presenters of such materials you will become hopelessly lost in their rhetoric. Thus, the best path is the one that follows the Standard for Review and then applies the law as it is properly learned.

Accordingly, in answering your question:
Earthicastar wrote:Can you tell me how it would be considered ignorance of the law that a common woman does not understand such Jargon, or,, 'gibberish'?
Yes, we can. Your entire presentment had nothing to do with the law or with its language; rather, it only had to do with third-party presentations of hypothetical gibberish. The problem you seem to be facing is not what is actually contained in the law, rather you seem to be doing a lot of reading of third-party sources instead of following the Standard for Review to study the law itself. By saying that, we are not saying there are no parts of the statutory codes that are not easily understood. Parts of it, like United States Code Title 26, are, without question, incomprehensible; but a study such as we have suggested, can give you the expressible ability to know exactly what of it is incomprehensible (and accordingly inapplicable); and, that knowledge would free you from its application. Further, that kind of knowledge could give you the ability to control the code enforcer; which is certainly worth the study.

The bottom line, no rhetoric regarding the law or its applicability will ever sway the enforcement arm of the corporate governance system. The only thing that will is the law that controls them and you cannot apply it without knowing it. Nothing more on that matter need be said because that is an undeniable fact.[hr][/hr]Your last question regarding the courts is self-explanatory, when you enter into contractual relations with such corporate bodies you grant their courts the jurisdiction to hear any related complaints. The same thing applies to actual governments. When you enter the venue, you grant your authority to hear complaints regarding your relations within that venue.

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.

Earthicastar
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 5
Joined: Monday April 27th, 2009 11:52 am MDT

Re: Default them every time

Postby Earthicastar » Friday July 24th, 2009 12:18 pm MDT

Again, maxim of law states "The law never requires impossibilities"

therefore ignorance of the law IS an excuse when the law 'they' (statutory courts) are refering to is one that changes at a rate which is impossible to know, (even by ones schooled in law), and 'they' are not refering to God's law.

I agree that ignorance of God's law is no excuse.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1570
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Default them every time

Postby Admin » Monday July 27th, 2009 1:46 pm MDT

:h: Earthicastar:
With this response, we are putting this contest to rest. Accordingly, any contest to this post must be expressed in a private message to Admin.

Your opinion denies the possibility of learning the law and refuses you the path that could lead you to understanding. But, that sort of thing has no place in our Open Forum system. The purpose of our Forum is to eliminate e-mail to and from Team Law. The idea is, if people can ask us their general questions in our Open Forum, others can read their posts, learn about Team Law and our work to preserve our country and thus eliminate the repetitious need for others to send similar e-mails; thus, we can disseminate massive amounts of information without repeating ourselves much. Thus, the scope of our Forum is limited to matters related to Team Law.

Our Forum is not a public blog spot for the expression of controversial ideas. Instead, we provide our forum so people can learn about Team Law and respectively about the value of our service.

In law, individual opinion will not overcome either the law or necessity; thus, so it is with the opinion that ignorance is an excuse. Though ignorance may well be the factual reason for noncompliance, that excuse will do no one service in court.

And again, we point out the fact that “Statute” is not the same thing as “Law”. We believe what you were commenting on is “statute”. And, as we said before, knowing Law provides a person with the sufficient understanding to know when statutes are irrelevant or otherwise fail to apply and need not be learned. Also, statutes containing massive volumes of conflicting codified rhetoric cannot be applicable for their incomprehensibility—and accordingly, cannot be law (even in contract). Thus, if your contest rests there, we already expressed that is not law and gives no cause for contest with what we already expressed.

Finally, our Constitutional Republic form of government does not provide government (or its constructs) with the authority to pass laws that control the people. However, if you have joined with Corp. U.S. in contractual relations with them, then you must also know the terms of those contractual relations just as you must know the law. Again, in such matters, “Ignorance is never an excuse.” Accordingly, we suggest a thorough review of our Myth 22, which you will find on our Patriot Mythology webpage.

Earthicastar, we appreciate your apparent desire for something else to be true in this matter; but it is not. These facts regarding law, statute and relationships are existent; and, bantering about such topics further will not change what is.

Only learning the law can help change the situation people find themselves in today. And, that is exactly what Team Law does—we help people learn how to learn the law; so that they can again regain control over their lives (as the sovereigns that they are), reseat our original jurisdiction government and bring the powers of corporate governance back under the control of law regardless of contract; which is an elemental necessity to preserving our liberty and our future.

Further conflicting discussion on such matters is fruitless. You have expressed your point of view regarding the matter; however, that point of view contests what we have already experienced by learning the law and applying it. Accordingly, your contest is out of place here. We have experienced the effect of learning the law and applying it—it works!

Your contest expresses your perspective, which presupposes what we have already done, is impossible. Such a perspective implies that, though others have, you cannot learn the law and use it to save yourself and our country; therefore, we cannot help you, unless you change that opinion and give yourself the chance to take advantage of what we have already learned. Without such a change, by your own admission, you are doomed to remain at the effect of the powers of governance under which you find yourself bound.

This situation reminds me of the scriptural story of Moses raising a staff with a snake attached to it and warning the people that all they need to do is look upon the staff and they would be healed from the venom of the snakes that had invaded their camp. Still, there were those that refused to look because they refused to believe the cure could be so simple as to look upon the staff. Their refusal remained even in the face of the fact that all that looked were in fact healed.

We believe those that refused to look at the staff and died from the venom were foolish.

Today, your argument seems of that same sort. In the face of the factual information we have already provided and the overwhelming evidence available to anyone that will embark on a Standard for Review guided study of our History and Law, only the slothful or the foolish will fail to learn how to learn the law and apply it; as a self-fulfilling prophesy, their ignorance limits them from the truth while their passion drives them to follow the ignorance of others to their own doom.

The sad effect of it all is, if enough people follow your ill gotten logic, you will drag them along to that same doom and many will fall in that destruction. You may wonder why we reduce this to a warning of eminent destruction. We do it because too many people are already beating the drum of war against Corp. U.S. based upon their false belief that there is no other remedy.

There is a remedy. We have shown it. The remedy is simple—we must simply do what we are already required to do—that being, “Learn the law and apply it.”

The ignorant path to war requires its ignorant followers to ignore the last plank of the Communist Manifesto plan for taking over a great nation is, “Cause the people to rebel.” They rally people to believe the purpose behind threatened gun controls is to get rid of your gun rights but just look at the facts:
    During the last four Corp. U.S. President’s terms of office, Corp. U.S. has threatened to remove and control guns; and, certainly some of the forewarned controls were installed on the B.A.T.F. controlled manufacturers of firearms. However, when each such threat was preceded by a 6-month or more warning, the people bought the guns slated for regulation or elimination and more guns were sold to more people than ever before. In a relatively short period, gun ownership multiplied. Each threat seemed to cause gun ownership to triple. The threats went on through the terms of three presidents until all that could be armed by such threats were armed. Today, that amounts to thousands of times more owners of guns than there ever were most of them now owning several guns of various varieties. With the population armed, the new threat has turned to ammunition sales controls; and, once again, the race is on. Just like under the threat of gun control, stores are now having a difficult time of keeping ammunition on the shelves. The result is, those that were so armed by such threats are now acquiring “enough ammunition”; but, the question is, “Enough for what?”
The worst part about all of this is not the armed populace. The worst part is the mental view of the gun owners. 50 years ago when people thought about their guns, they thought about hunting. Today, that mentality has changed to self-defense; and the biggest cause for self-defense has turned to concern over the need to defend against the powers of governance. People we would have never imagined possible have begun to express a belief in a need for an armed rebellion against Corp. U.S.

That is ludicrous! Rebellion is the one thing we cannot do!
Because it is, exactly what Corp. U.S. needs the people of this nation to do to eliminate our Constitutional Republic—the very thing that would preserve our country and our rights if people would simply learn the law and learn how to apply it.

Corp. U.S.’ agent provocateurs foment the people into falsely believing there is no other path available to us; when in fact, the people listening have not even learned the law! They failed start their self-education in law because they failed to believe they could.

The old adage is true, “Whether you think you can or you think you can’t—you’re right.”
Respectively the following is also true, “If you never start, you will never finish.”

Again, Team Law helps people learn the law from their own experience, research and study. We can help you learn it and we can help you learn how to apply it properly; and, together, we can win our country back—legally, lawfully and peacefully—with a stronger economy right through the transition than the country has ever known.

To do it, you must follow the Standard for Review. You must know who you are. And, you must get your life in order by getting right with your Creator—That means, repent now, time is of the essence. Then you must learn the necessities of history; a good source to follow in that study is our Myth 22 article. And, you must learn the applicable Law—again Team Law can help you. Finally, you must apply what you learn.

You need not attempt to “get out of the system.” Attempting to do so will only hinder your ability to control the system as you apply the law and if you follow what Team Law can help you with you will be contractually independent from your controls of the contractual relations you can function with inside the system.

The bottom line: If you have the opinion, that you cannot learn the law, then it is likely that you have no place with us; because, we know you can. Our forum is not a place for such contests; rather, it is a place reserved for those that would like to know more about Team Law and so desire to support our work—so they can join with us in our effort to save our nation. We welcome you if that is your intent; if it is not, we ask you to depart in peace until it is—hopefully you will not wait too long to decide.

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

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


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


Return to “Miscellaneous Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests