: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^:

What Life could be like...

This forum is for topics not listed below.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

User avatar
CloseTheBoxQuick
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 12
Joined: Tuesday October 26th, 2010 10:49 am MDT

What Life could be like...

Postby CloseTheBoxQuick » Monday January 17th, 2011 11:29 pm MST

Hello there,
I have been lurking around your website for a little less than a year now, trying to digest the things you've presented. I found your site after attending a history seminar put on by Tim Turner's people and I went online afterward looking for information that might bear on their credibility. Congratulations on being the only website outside of Turner's personal circle to even mention what he's doing; he seems to manage his Internet presence as vigorously as you do yours. :)

So...in the last year I've had most of my worldview turned on its head, thanks to your articles and Open Forum. I was going to wait until I'd read the whole forum, and independently verified the crucial elements, before posting here. But, well, it's been most of a year and I'm not finished reading the open forum yet. :-) I will say, though, that your presentation of our nation's history gives a lot more meaning to the current political and judicial landscape. Things that used to seem bizarre and inexplicable to me--the power-madness of the three branches of government, the policies that have been proven to cause poverty and bondage and even stupidity--seemed chaotic and destabilizing. Living at the mercy of the whims of an arbitrary judiciary was not only frightening, because you'd never know what they'd do next, it's also what kicks a lot of people over into conspiracy-theory-land. I've never been fond of conspiracy theories, so I am glad to find your historical explanation of these things. I guess what I am trying to say is, I am happy to learn that our nation's predicament, dire though it is, still makes sense; that there is still order in our political and judicial worlds, and the only thing necessary to SEE the order and stability is to learn the rules they operate under.

So, I can't say whether your claims are actually true or not, because I haven't yet done much of the verifying that I intend to; but your basic thesis has given me hope. And that's something, isn't it?

I do have a couple of questions for you. They seem like really big issues to me, so I'm surprised they haven't been brought up on the Open Forum yet. (I haven't read the whole forum yet, but I did search for key words and didn't find anything.) The first one is, it sounds great to be able to fulfill all our contracts with the various corps and then not have to worry about all their labyrinthine regulations and taxes anymore. But, if you are not contracted with the corps, and you aren't paying taxes to the corps, don't you also lose some basic services that they offer? For instance, what if your house catches on fire? Can the fire department legally say, "Sorry, you're not part of the 'club,' we don't have to come and help you." Or if your child is kidnapped? Can the police tell you, "Go hire a private investigator. You're not covered under our corporate contract." This seems like a big thing to think about before fulfilling these contracts.

The second question is basically like the first question but on a larger scale. I know that you are working hard to reseat the OJ offices, and I'm sure you've given a lot of thought to how things might play out if your use of the law catches on with the people at large in this country. However, I have difficulty imagining how a mass awakening of this sort (wonderful as it would be) wouldn't also have some serious downsides. For example, if there is a mass exodus of taxpayer and business revenue from corp.US, I don't see them simply letting it happen. Even if it doesn't come to violence, it may still come to misery and death for millions of Americans who are dependent on the current system when that system begins to lose the productivity and influence that have allowed it to support the poor and ignorant for so many generations. I can imagine corp.US losing such productivity slowly, and then all at once as critical mass is reached in the marketplace of ideas. Many welfare junkies will be starving. Maybe I am a pessimist, but I have a hard time imagining how this type of scenario might be avoided. On the other hand, you seem to be an optimist, so maybe you could share your vision of how you envision that sort of transition taking place. I realize I'm not asking a legal question here; I'm trying to understand what your overall vision is and what you're working toward on a large scale.

And lastly, when I imagine the kind of life I could lead if I learned the law and applied it, I imagine a life with far greater liberty than I now feel I have; but also a life without the "bargaining power," so to speak, of being covered by corp. laws designed to protect people. To take employment as an example, if I worked for pay as a natural person, under a private contract with another natural person, then (if my understanding is correct), neither of us would be obligated to follow employment laws like minimum wage laws, wage reporting/withholding, workplace safety, non-discrimination, family medical leave, protection from retaliation in case of filing a complaint, etc., etc., etc. Employment is a highly regulated field. The laws surrounding it have resulted from groups of people combining their resources to pressure corp.US into curtailing other people's liberty to engage in contracts freely. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with any specific regulation; but the point is, I think there are benefits to all parties when employment laws are followed (except, of course, the people who can't find jobs). Now, I used to complain about all this regulation when I thought that corp.US was the government. But, if I understand correctly, corp.US is more like a huge "club" where people voluntarily sign up and agree to follow certain rules because, ideally, they think the world would be a better place if they followed them. And that's respectable, in theory. (Of course, it becomes another matter when the "club" becomes unreasonable and oppressive.) When I think about my choice to be "in" the club or "out" of the club (and I realize it isn't actually that simple), I feel somewhat intimidated by the expectation that doing un-mainstream things could subject me to harrassment and more courtroom hours than the average attorney. [shock] I accept that I have an obligation to know the law, but having to fight tooth-and-nail, in court, with high stakes, in order to exercise my ideal lifestyle makes that lifestyle seem a little less ideal. I guess I am referring to the strength in numbers (and the seeming hegemony) that corp.US has. So my question is, if corp.US is like a big, voluntary "club" that operates lawfully under and within USA law, then what prevents mavericks like some of the people on this forum from forming our own big, voluntary "club" that gives us some measure of strength in numbers and "competes" (in a marketplace sense) with corp.US? It seems both desirable and theoretically possible. There could be many such "clubs," joining one (or more) of which would curtail a person's contractual freedom in some way(s) while providing certain benefits. The individual could choose what level of invasiveness/authoritarianism he/she is comfortable with the "club" having in relation to him/her--so, for example, I could choose (or start) a club that regulates employment practices but not health care or religion. Of course, people are free to leave their voluntary associations at any time. Do you see where I'm going with this? What's your take on this idea? Are people already doing this, and I'm just unaware of it? :)

Well, I apologize for the unusual length of this post. Some of the things you say on this website have made me think and imagine, which I suppose is the point, and these are the things I've been thinking about and imagining. I look forward to your responses, Admin, and anyone else who wants to chime in on these topics.
I'm not Chaotic Good after all -- TEAMLAW.NET is teaching me I am Lawful Good!! :-D

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

Re: What Life could be like...

Postby SimplyThinkDreams » Tuesday January 18th, 2011 10:17 am MST

Closetheboxquick,
Your post is rather long and asks a multitude of questions. I do not have the time to go over every single question; but, I would like to make a comment or two that should help you to answer many of those questions yourself.

Corp. U.S and the Corp. States are corporations that were formed by the original jurisdiction Federal Government and the original jurisdiciton State governments respectively. These corporate entities were created to handle the business needs of the original jurisdiction governental entities which created them. That being the case there are cetain duties that these corporations must carry out. Perhaps some of your concerns involve matters which these entities would be required to perform. However, it is your responsibility to find out what Corp. U.S. and the Corp. State's obligations are and to make sure they carry out those obligations.

As sovereigns, we have the unlimited ability to contract. The Constitution for the United States of America secures that God given right and expressly limits the government from interfering with private contracts. In light of that information, I ask you, couldn't the man contract with the fire department to put out any fires that may occur on your property? Couldn't you form any lawful contract that you so desire with any other willing party?

An employer employee relationship is a contract. More often than not, that relationship is governed by the Corp. State because of the parties involved; generally, a business entity formed under the Corp. State and a Social Security Administration created trust. However, a sovereign with the unlimited ability to contract can surely form a private employment contract with any employer. If a person had concerns over certain matters, those matters could be addressed in the terms of said contract.

I hope these few comments help you to better understand the questions you presented in your post. I am sure Admin will address your questions in a little more detail, especially the ones invovling the reseating of the original jurisdiction government and the effect of such action on Corp. U.S. and the Corp. States.

Shalom,
SimplyThinkDreams

User avatar
CloseTheBoxQuick
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 12
Joined: Tuesday October 26th, 2010 10:49 am MDT

Re: What Life could be like...

Postby CloseTheBoxQuick » Tuesday January 18th, 2011 6:56 pm MST

SimplyThinkDreams,
Thank you very much for replying. I believe that I understand all of what you said from reading Team Law's forums. However, you do seem to imply that a person who is under contract with corp.US or a corp.state does not have his ability to enter other contracts diminished at all. This is contrary to my understanding. To take employment as the example, if I am contracted with corp.US (i.e., acting on behalf of a taxpayer trust), then corp.US employment law applies to me, and I (acting as Trustee) would not be legally allowed to sign an employment contract that violated some aspect of employment law (e.g., minimum wage). But if I contracted as a natural person, there would be no such limitation on my ability to contract. Therefore, it seems to me that if I choose to put bread on my table by lending consciousness and physical capacity to a taxpayer trust, rather than by contracting on my own, the result is that the variety of contractual terms that could be agreed upon is diminished. Did I express that correctly, and am I correct in my understanding?

I understand that, "As sovereigns, we have the unlimited ability to contract." But, if we use some of that ability to contract with corp.US, don't we usually diminish our ability to sign other possible contracts that would conflict with our contract with corp.US?

Regarding the fire department example, it would certainly be possible for ME, as a natural (wo)man, to contract with the fire department as you indicate. But my question was whether the fire department could refuse to enter into that contract with me; thus depriving me of fire protection for my house (unless I could get it somewhere else--such as a competing "corp"--which is why I asked about that possibility in my last question).

I know that corp.US and the corp.states are actually corporations, not clubs. I used the metaphor "club" to emphasize their voluntary nature and the fact that they can't compel compliance the way a government could.

Are we on the same page now, or am I still misunderstanding something?

Thank you for your thoughts, SimplyThinkDreams!
I'm not Chaotic Good after all -- TEAMLAW.NET is teaching me I am Lawful Good!! :-D

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

Re: What Life could be like...

Postby Admin » Sunday January 23rd, 2011 3:23 pm MST

:h: Closetheboxquick:
We appreciate the concerns you expressed because we have noticed people often experience such concerns when they first discover the difference between what they thought was reality and the actual nature of things. However, we expect you may be imagining concerns over such matters simply because you are new to your discovery.

After you read SimplyThinkDreams’ response you expressed an imagination of possibly having diminished abilities from what you had before you discovered your ability to act in your own natural nature separate from the relationship created by the Social Security Administration (hereinafter “SSA”).

However, we cannot comprehend how that could possibly be considering the fact that anything you understood that could have been done prior to that discovery remains available to that trust and additionally, you now understand there is a world of things you can do separately (in your own natural capacity); and/or in other capacities to which you may have access.

SimplyThinkDreams responded to your initial inquiry using the term “sovereign” to describe your natural nature, capacity and options related to that standing. However, we find people often fail to understand that term because they do not realize sovereignty is defined by: dominion, agency and possession. Accordingly, your personal sovereign nature has little effect on your relations with others unless the matters in question actually deal with your dominion, agency and/or possession. However, it does not seem like your inquiry was focused on such matters; rather, you were asking about how you might relate with others, outside of your sovereign domain.

Such is the case of the numbered taxpayer.
Obviously that party is not you even though you are the one that provides it with consciousness and physical capacity (see Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole). Thus, because that is a distinctively different person from you it has distinctively different capacities.

Accordingly, because the two parties are uniquely different they should be maintained distinctively separate. Doing so would not limit either one of the two from any action or capacity that either of them could take in accord with their respective capacities. Thus, it evermore becomes important to acknowledge (and secure) the distinction between the two capacities.

Acknowledging that, you may begin to notice you cannot sign an employment contract for such an agency anymore than it can sign for you. The two capacities are distinct.

People seem to understand such distinctions better when they are referring to a corporate President’s capacity. In that situation, they certainly understand such a President’s actions are not the action of the man; rather, they are the actions of the Corporation.

Hopefully, given that extra bit of information, you are beginning to see that understanding the nature of the relationship with the agency the SSA created limits neither you nor it from any function either of you have.

Still, if that agency is the party that contracted for employment then it is the employee; not you. Neither party is limited from such a contract unless the terms of such employment are only available to one or the other of you.

With the advent of Homeland Security controls implied over banks, health care and corporate state identity systems, functioning in your natural capacity is becoming more difficult for those that are not numbered taxpayers and have not already secured their positions in commercial contracts to bank and carry on other commercial activities; that because most commercial agents are now demanding a TIN to enter contracts. Thus, other legal and lawful means must be secured to make such relationships possible in the current environment. While using any such means, it is now more important than ever to secure your natural nature and the actual relationship you already have with the SSA. To do any of that, most people require a service like Team Law to help them learn how to learn the law. Respectively, Team Law can help them learn how to distinctively secure their natural nature and the actual nature of the relationship with the SSA.

However, that level of service requires Team Law beneficiary support; so we can only delve further into such topics on our Beneficiary’s Private Forum.[hr][/hr]In your initial inquiry you also expressed concerns over the effect the reseating our original jurisdiction government would have on commerce. To that end you are imagining that placing the original jurisdiction government back in place would somehow end the current economy—however, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, reseating the original jurisdiction government simply puts the government and the laws of our Constitutional Republic back in control over the corporate entities that are currently running commerce. The effect of what we have shown how to do will not interfere with current commercial relationships at all; though, quite quickly the elimination of the Corp. U.S. debts and return of actual money into the system will cause the system to flourish. Thus we can see no effect such as you suggested. Again, we cannot go into the details of that process here, but, suffice it to say we can see no possible reasons for what you were imagining.

You next presupposed that some of Corp. U.S.’ laws are formulated to protect people. When you look at the whole picture of such presuppositions we have a hard time imagining that. Instead, it seems like most laws that have that appearance are not actually centered on protecting people; rather, they seem centered on controlling them. In fact, if we look at the effect of most such things they do quite the opposite of protecting. Likely the best example of that is the social security system. On first appearance of what was proposed to the people in 1935 the system seems quite philanthropic in its endeavors. What could be better than a system designed to provide people with financial support when they become elderly and even potentially unable to work to provide for their families? Then you discover the system is actually designed to make you the trustee for a government agency that owns everything you develop, own or acquire through the use of the system and today is used to prove your “legal presence” in our country; as if your birth was not enough. As was foretold by John the Revelator, the time would come when you would not be able to buy, sell or trade without it. It does not protect, it controls. It also has people believing that they cannot work without such a mark. Again, that is not protection, it’s akin to slavery. In our community we have a voluntary fire department. It is supported locally through the local people’s efforts. The County and cities nearby have the corporate state supported system and theirs cannot compare with ours. Theirs is substandard by comparison and ours is not supported from property tax dollars. Thus, it can be done without either big government or forced controls foisted upon the people.

Now, let’s look at their system and see which evil causes the greater risk to losing a family home: “fire” or “forced property tax sales”. Statistics easily show, tax sales take the prize every time. It should not be that way but ignorance paves the way to that luxury. Given the options, of being forced into their system or having my home consumed by fire and having to start all over from scratch—I’ll take the fire every time—because the difference is freedom! I can always build a new house or find another way.

Then you suggested that learning the law would result in spending more time in court. Actually we expect the opposite is true on that front as well. However, regardless of whether more or less time would be spent in court our interest would not be in how much time was spent; rather, we would be interested in the ratio of wins whenever we had to go there. Sure, freedom has a cost, but the cost is not the same for those that know the law. For them the cost is significantly less. And, the requirement for knowing the law remains a constant. All of us must learn and apply the law. Those that do have a great chance of remaining free; those that do not can never be free. It is just that simple.

Team Law can help those that want to learn the law; after all, that is what we do. We help people learn how to learn the law from their own firsthand experience studying the law itself and its history from its source. Believe it or not, once people start learning it they actually enjoy it.

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
CloseTheBoxQuick
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 12
Joined: Tuesday October 26th, 2010 10:49 am MDT

Re: What Life could be like...

Postby CloseTheBoxQuick » Friday January 28th, 2011 9:50 am MST

Admin,
Thank you for your in-depth response! I think I do understand better the ways people can contract with trusts.

I hope you are right about our economy surviving the reseating of the OJ government. But either way, I hope you accomplish it. :-) I'll be sure to vote in a couple of years after I buy land.

You know, from a religious perspective, I think sometimes it can be better to win in court than to stay out of court (if accused of a crime). But in general, I have to admit I would rather not be accused to begin with. :-) I guess we all draw the line at the risks with which we are comfortable.

Cheers,
CloseTheBoxQuick
I'm not Chaotic Good after all -- TEAMLAW.NET is teaching me I am Lawful Good!! :-D

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

Re: What Life could be like...

Postby Admin » Friday January 28th, 2011 12:19 pm MST

:h: CloseTheBoxQuick:
We do not understand what you mean by your “religious perspective” of “better to win in court than to stay out of court”. It seems like getting charged with a crime indicates one of three options:
  1. The party so charged did not know the law;
  2. The party so charged knew the law but violated it anyway; or,
  3. The enforcers of the law misapplied it.
The Law of Obedience, which is elemental to the religious concept that God gives commands to man, provides that the second option would not be “better”; because it is in violation of the nature of the perspective. And, in any reasonable religious perspective, people are required to know the law so they can be obedient to it; thus, the first option also stands in violation of the Law of Obedience. Thus, we would conclude—cannot qualify as “better” from such a perspective. Thus, the only option such a religious perspective allows for your statement would require as a prerequisite that the third option is the only way to be before such a court review.

Still, your comment:
Closetheboxquick wrote:I think sometimes it can be better to win in court than to stay out of court … we…draw the line at the risks with which we are comfortable.
Presupposes a choice that does not exist when the third option is the cause of the charges that land you in court.

Thus, your meaning is unclear. It seems like you may be implying some intent to do something that would bring you to some cause of criminal action against you and as if whatever that is has something to do with information Team Law has presented. But, that also makes no sense whatsoever!

The only things Team Law are directly related to helping people learn how to learn the law so they can learn how to apply the law. As per our reference to the presupposed Law of Obedience, we are all required to know the law. The problems people generally have with the law are their participation in those first to options listed above. Team Law is the remedy for both of those two options. We help people learn how to learn the law so they can properly and lawfully apply the law and or live in accord with it.

Of course, learning the law is also the best remedy in the case of the third option (listed above) being exercised against people as well. Accordingly, it is our hope that due to Team Law’s help, people so learning and applying the law will keep them from having to defend themselves in court; and, if they ever find themselves in that predicament, they will have the knowhow available to them to prevail.

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
CloseTheBoxQuick
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 12
Joined: Tuesday October 26th, 2010 10:49 am MDT

Re: What Life could be like...

Postby CloseTheBoxQuick » Friday January 28th, 2011 3:13 pm MST

Admin,
No, I'm not planning any crime. Your option #3 was correct; the legal and lawful nature of any act for which I might be falsely arrested in my example was an assumption I made that was elemental to my entire post. (I was also speaking hypothetically.) I'm sorry I didn't articulate that assumption clearly.

Cheers,
CloseTheBoxQuick
I'm not Chaotic Good after all -- TEAMLAW.NET is teaching me I am Lawful Good!! :-D

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

Re: What Life could be like...

Postby Admin » Thursday February 3rd, 2011 2:22 pm MST

:h: CloseTheBoxQuick:
That is as we expected. It is wise to learn the law so you can apply it. Far too many people ignore that necessity until it is too late. Then they find themselves in an urgent situation where they believe they must hire an attorney to defend them. Still, because they do not know the law, they have no idea whether the attorney is doing the right thing in their defense. At the end of the day, win or lose, they have to pay the cost of their defense and of the attorney. It is a lose–lose situation even if you win the case because you come away from the experience knowing little more of value than you knew when you went in. We are not opposed to hiring attorneys; just in becoming subjected to them due to hiring them in ignorance.

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: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests