:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

On Sunday (September 10, 2017, at: 5:00 pm Mountain Time) Pastor Butch Paugh, (of: GCN Radio Network’s: “Call to Decision” radio show) interviewed Team Law’s Trustee. We will publish that interview on our Online Audio page once it goes through editing to remove the commercial breaks.

We hold a Free Conference Call 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^:

After reading this announcement, you may remove it by clicking the “X” in the upper right corner of the announcement's green background.

Land & Hunting License / Man vs. Taxpayer

The mystery of Land Patents unveiled.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Popeye2347
Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Sunday September 15th, 2013 8:12 am MDT

Land & Hunting License / Man vs. Taxpayer

Postby Popeye2347 » Wednesday September 25th, 2013 9:41 am MDT

I recently paid off my mortgage and now have the deed. Thanks to the education I found here on your website I am getting everything together to submit to you the documents for a Land Patent Sandwich.
While reading 'Land 101', a question came to mind. In this quote- “Appurtenances” may also be inheritable and are separately secured in the Land Patent and are defined as ‘that which pertains to the land; including anything that fills that space defined by the Land description; for example things like: air, dirt, chemical deposits, minerals, shrubs, trees, buildings, water, fish, livestock, wild animals and private property sitting on the land, etc.’ The Land Patent expressly “grants” these patent secured rights to the named patent recipient and to their heirs and assigns, forever. That means that the property (real estate) sitting within the borders of the Land is land patent secured to the lawful patent holder. ....Wild animals are mentioned.

The question that comes to my mind is if this statement is correct [which I do not doubt] then why do I need a state issued hunting license to harvest wildlife on my own property?

Unless my wildlife rights have been contracted away. If that is so, could you direct me to find said contract?

The game wardens are very serious that without a license the taking of any game is illegal and will result in tickets, fines, etc.
Thank you in advance for any assistance you provide.

User avatar
Tplane37
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 7
Joined: Sunday August 5th, 2012 10:07 pm MDT

Re: Land & Hunting License / Man vs. Taxpayer

Postby Tplane37 » Wednesday September 25th, 2013 4:49 pm MDT

Popeye2347:
Welcome to Team Law.

At first glance, your post leaves the implication that you have come seeking advice. However, it is apparent that by using the forum, you should be aware of Team Law’s position on advice. Therefore, I presume that your grammatical construction may still require some fine tuning to prevent future miscommunication.

The initial question that comes to my mind upon reviewing your post is: What has brought you to the conclusion that you are required to be in possession of some sort of license to provide food for your family from your own land; whether you have secured the land patent to your land or merely color of title without such acceptance? I know of no such mandate concerning food gathered from your own property.

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

Re: Land & Hunting License / Man vs. Taxpayer

Postby Admin » Wednesday September 25th, 2013 5:47 pm MDT

:h: Popeye2347:
At Team Law our purpose is to help people learn how to learn; rather than, just expressing our opinions about the proper applications of the law. Respectively, before we respond directly to your inquiry; please follow these instructions:
  1. Follow this link to Team Law’s Home Page; and, when you get there read the whole article published on that page.
  2. Once you have read that page, ponder this question: “Who is the owner of the real estate in question?”
  3. When you find your answer, come back to this page and share that answer with us.
If you will follow those instructions, you should discover why the game warden is presupposed to have the authority you referenced they believe they have.

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.

Popeye2347
Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Sunday September 15th, 2013 8:12 am MDT

Re: Land & Hunting License / Man vs. Taxpayer

Postby Popeye2347 » Thursday September 26th, 2013 8:58 am MDT

Duhh. I read but failed to comprehend the first time or two I read the home page.

The answer to my question as I understood what I read, is due to my entanglement with the Social Security and the 'benefits' that come with it, most everything I purchase is held in trust by me for Corp U.S. Thus it goes to reason that if I am the trustee, then the settlor [Corp U.S.] can create rules, laws, regulations, etc as they desire.

I know there is a long road ahead of me, learning first about my land and it's title, then my status as a sovereign individual. I look forward to getting my land patent completed with your help. One day maybe, LORD willing, I will be a benefactor.

Thanks for your guidance. Also, I just realized I asked this question prematurely, as only minutes ago I discovered a similar question posted in the forum. Sorry for asking for assistance when it was already given.

As I said, I have a lot of learning [and un-learning] ahead of me.

Thanks again.

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

Re: Land & Hunting License / Man vs. Taxpayer

Postby Admin » Thursday September 26th, 2013 12:01 pm MDT

:h: Popeye2347:
OK; so you seem to be on the right track with a few exceptions; let’s review those:
  1. The “entanglement with the Social Security” is not well described as an “entanglement”; so, review the Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole article and remember that the nature of that relationship is simple; it is a trust that was contracted with you when you agreed to lend that trust your consciousness and physical capacity so that it could have function; as the Social Security’s cardholder.
    • So, wisdom says: “Call it what it is.”
  2. We’ll skip your reference to ‘benefits’ for the moment and here note that: “The cardholding trust is not you.”
    • So, wisdom says: “It is a bad idea to refer to the social security cardholder as if it were you.”
      Therefore, let’s hereinafter refer to it as the: “SSCT” (Social Security cardholding trust).
  3. Respectively, you did not likely make any of those purchases you referred to—rather, they were most likely directly purchased by said SSCT.
  4. Respectively, those things so purchased are not “held in trust by me for Corp U.S.”; however, they are held by Corp. U.S. in their agent, the SSCT, for Corp U.S.
    • So, remember: though you may lend consciousness and physical capacity to the SSCT, it is not you!
Now the distinct difference between the way we presented that might seem like what you were trying to say; but, the difference is in your identity and the distinct difference between you and the SSCT; which is not you.

Nonetheless, you were accurate when you noted that the corporate state can make laws to limit Corp. U.S. and its agents as they relate to taking game from said State; even if that game is on property privately held in trust for Corp. U.S. You see, the Constitution limits government from owning land except under certain specified conditions; and the treaties preserve landownership to people (with the possible exception of certain specific Acts of Congress); thus, even though Corp. U.S. can hold real estate in a trust, it cannot own unless the constitutional conditions are first met. So, until that ownership actually passes to the government itself, the corporate state can lawfully regulate the game, etc. on that land. There are also other conditions that could allow corporate state control over such game but those are outside of the scope of this response and beyond the limits of your inquiry; so, we will not address them here.

Now, regarding the allegation you made to: ‘benefits’; we question that allegation seeing no benefits to said relationship. You may correct us if you imagine that we are wrong.

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.

Popeye2347
Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Sunday September 15th, 2013 8:12 am MDT

Re: Land & Hunting License / Man vs. Taxpayer

Postby Popeye2347 » Thursday September 26th, 2013 11:04 pm MDT

  1. I stand corrected, I will 'Call it what it is.'
  2. This brings the question to mind of how to reply to the question, your social security number please?…when asked in order to separate the sovereign me from SSCT?
  3. If I understand this correctly, Using Federal Reserve Notes to pay is evidence I am buying as SSCT and for their benefit.
This leads me to understand that in order to buy items for the personal 'me' I must pay with silver, gold [or coins?]. In the case of purchasing land, I then could decline to accept the pro-rated yearly taxes. True or false? Further, if I were to pay assessments I would again be obligated to continue paying the assessment.

re: 'benefits' Your assessment is correct, the benefits, especially at my age of 64, are many.

I look forward to becoming a Team Law beneficiary.

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

Re: Land & Hunting License / Man vs. Taxpayer

Postby Admin » Friday September 27th, 2013 5:28 am MDT

:h: Popeye2347:
Sadly, they don’t even ask that anymore. Today (and since the passage of the Homeland Security Act), they just say: “What’s your Social?”

Respectively, when they ask me such a question, my first response is usually something like: “Well I don’t belong to the Elks lodge or anything like that; so, mostly I gather with my wife and family; however, I have been known to go to Church gatherings as well. Why do you ask?”

Of course, with that response, the person asking the question just looks at me with a blank stare. So, I just stand there looking at them with curiosity; wondering whether they even know the noun, ‘Social’, is defined as: “An informal social gathering, esp. one organized by the members of a particular club or group.”

If they come around to understanding that I just asked them a relevant question and they come back to their original intent (most often they don’t) then they will say something like: “Oh, no. I meant, “What is your social security number?” Then I respond: “I don’t have one.” And that takes us to a whole other discussion spawned from the fact that they thought everyone had to have one. Due to the usual time constraints related to such situations, at that point I just refer them to Team Law’s website; where the home page will help them learn exactly what social security number relationship is.

Of course, my answer: “I don’t have one”, is the end of that story—I don’t; so, I couldn’t give them if I wanted to. However, if I were in a situation similar to yours, I might recognize that the mere fact that they asked that question: “What’s your Social?”, indicates they do not want to talk to me (a natural man); rather, they want to address a Social Security Administration (hereinafter “SSA”) created cardholding trust (hereinafter “SSCT”). Therefore, given that fact, the SSCT might simply respond with the SSCT’s social security number (hereinafter “SSN”). Again, in such a situation, the facts and the laws related to such a circumstance would clearly indicate that the party so responding is not me (the natural man); rather, it must be a SSCT; because, only such trusts have SSNs.

Now, without your being a Team Law beneficiary we cannot go to far into support with such a matter; yet, we will now briefly go as far as we can addressing the issue of the alleged “benefits”, regardless of age, of having a relationship with the SSA in the form of a SSCT.

We have asked many thousands of people why they got so involved in the first instance; and, it always boils down to one reason:”So they could meet their expenses as they go through life.” Now, we would say that is simply a matter of ignorance; that is to say: their having a poor education regarding the matter.

However, today (in post Homeland Security Act America), if you did not grow up with bank accounts, etc. that do not have Taxpayer Identification Numbers attached to them, it is difficult to secure such accounts through which you can buy, sell and trade without such a number. Of course, that is reminiscent of John the Revelator’s prophecy that a time will come when you will not be able to buy, sell or trade without taking the mark of the beast.

Still, we do not see that as a benefit—rather, we see that as a curse. Certainly, such a thing cannot be considered a benefit to man. John’s solution to the matter was that the man had to come out of Babylon. About that situation, Christ said words to the effect of: “No man can serve two masters…you cannot serve God and Mammon both.” Again, it seems clear enough to me that the SSCT is no benefit to man. Respectively, distributions from the SSA have no benefit to man—rather, they are distributed to the SSCT. In fact, we expect that virtually everything you have ever worked for throughout your life went to and/or is owned by the SSCT—not you; so, we ask you: “How is that a benefit to you when that only makes you a servant to Mammon?” Again, that is no benefit.

Still, let us not lose hope. The remedy for ignorance is education. Therefore, once trapped in that condition, the remedy seems simple enough, learn the law and apply it to distinguish your natural natured self from that Corp. U.S. agency, the SSCT. Then manage both natures separately. Better still, learn God’s laws (that is the laws He gave to Adam, et seq.), accept the covenants He offers and then apply them as a Steward in His kingdom to secure ultimate freedom.

Of course, that is, in fact, Team Law’s purpose—to help people learn how to learn the law so they can apply it to preserve our Liberty. Respectively, we welcome you to the path.

With that we hope you can see that there is power in learning how to use the SSCT (a Corp. U.S. agency) to buy, sell and trade in today’s commercial world; which is communistically controlled by Corp. U.S. and its agencies. However, there is no reason (other than lack of knowledge) that you cannot manage the SSCT such that it can become the means to the end through which all of its resources become free and clear property in your complete control having no relationship of ties to the SSCT. The SSCT can also give you the power to control Corp. U.S.; instead of it controlling you. In other words, it can be sued to come out of Babylon and service to Mammon; with a little education — available through Team Law.

The other issues you inquired after require Team Law beneficiary support; so we will stop there for now.

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.

Popeye2347
Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Sunday September 15th, 2013 8:12 am MDT

Re: Land & Hunting License / Man vs. Taxpayer

Postby Popeye2347 » Friday September 27th, 2013 7:28 am MDT

Thank you for your most helpful insight and education. I look forward to learning what I can to better my position in life.

While I am gathering funds to send documents to you for my land patent sandwich, I am following the chain of owners from myself to where my humble 3 acres was granted back in April 24th, 1820. It is a learning and enjoyable task.

Since I discovered Team Law and seen what it can do, I have spoke with several friends and coworkers but have yet to generate very much interest, Mainly I am focusing on deeds and titles to real estate and property. I have discovered that Corp Illinois have done a VERY good job UN-educating [is that a word?] the public as to the benefit of having the actual title to land. Not only legal secretaries but people working in the abstract office have thought I am foolish for wanting to bring the abstract up to date, or even messing with the title to my land. The almost universal response is,,,"but you have title insurance." My reply usually is along the lines of 'that is all well and good, now can I have the information I am seeking?

Well, its time I am off to the county clerk's office for more research. Again, thanks.

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

Re: Land & Hunting License / Man vs. Taxpayer

Postby Admin » Saturday September 28th, 2013 8:50 am MDT

:h: Popeye2347:
Regarding the word you coined “UN-educating”, try “Dumbing Down”.
To define: “dumb down” Merriam-Webster’s lexicographers wrote:To lower the level of difficulty and the intellectual content of (as a textbook); also : to lower the general level of intelligence in <the dumbing down of society>.

You might also want to read the book titled, Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, by John Taylor Gatto. The Author was the most celebrated school teacher in the New York public education system.

While you are getting funds together to take advantage of our Land Patent Sandwich service, you may want to remember that service is free to Team Law beneficiaries. Respectively, you may want to first find someone to nominate you as a Team Law beneficiary before you pay for that service. You may also want to look into The Way of Kings™ support. Though they are simply a custom designed asset protection system generator and provide no respective support beyond that, we have never seen any other organization that understands land better; or, that has better helped people secure both their own private nature and landownership in a more powerful way. They also nominate more Team Law beneficiaries than any other party so privileged.

Regarding the coworkers, without discussing the matter too much, we would simply direct them to Team Law’s Home Page or to the “Call to Action” page on our forum or send them to Twitter or Facebook.

Title insurance only insures title to property appurtenant to the land; and then, it only insures that if you lose a title contest regarding the property appurtenant to the land the title insurance may pay off the mortgage or compensate you for your costs (the amount of the policy) in originally securing said property—it will not recompense you for any appreciation in that value over time or any improvements you may have made on the property.

Title insurance has nothing to do with securing title to the land; respectively, only a fool would rely on title insurance to do that which the policy clearly proves it does not do.

The wise man self-educates before he acts—the proper source for such self-education is the source—history and the law itself. That is exactly why Team Law has from the beginning helped people learn how to learn the law firsthand from the source. Respectively, we welcome your support.

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 “Land Patents”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest