:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

We hope you enjoy your experience here.

We hold free conference calls every Monday through Thursday 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 conference calls;

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^:

Land Owner vs. citizen

The mystery of Land Patents unveiled.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

User avatar
FreeManOnLand
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 24
Joined: Thursday November 6th, 2008 1:41 pm MST

Land Owner vs. citizen

Postby FreeManOnLand » Saturday June 6th, 2009 3:07 pm MDT

In a brief moment of thought I began to question the difference between a Land Owner against someone who does not own land. Because I know the corp. US to be operating under admiralty law or, law of water, and Citizens having a patent to land made me wonder if being being a Citizen means you must own your own land; as opposed to a citizen who is "floating at sea" so to speak.

Does it, by any means, make a difference in court (proceedings) if you are a land owner as opposed to just a citizen with no claim to land and/or land patent?

It seems that the current strategy fighting for not agreeing with who you are; why not switch it around and tell them who you are with a land patent as evidence of your claim. With that perspective there would be no way for corp. us & state to even try to disprove your claim, which is: a Citizen of the united State of America.

Am I just blowing smoke here or am I on the right track?

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

Re: Land Owner vs. citizen

Postby SimplyThinkDreams » Monday June 8th, 2009 10:07 pm MDT

[hr][/hr] :h: Inserted by Admin:
We inserted this preface to acknowledge SimplyThinkDreams, is a registered user that has already demonstrated he knows Team Law is worthy of his support, yet SimplyThinkDreams is not a Team Law beneficiary; therefore, our Charter limits us from providing him further support until he is nominated as a Team Law beneficiary. As such, though he is limited from posting inquiries until he is a Team Law beneficiary, he can post responses.

Accordingly, we will correct his errors with red inserts directly in his response and ask that he get such responses approved by Admin prior to posting them in the future.
:t^: [hr][/hr]The Constitution for the United States of America is the supreme law of the land and secures the people's God given rights. One does not need to own land in order to have his God given rights because all men are created equal under God.[hr][/hr]Though there are terms under which all men are created equal, it is also obvious some are born with limited capacity. Consider the child born with no ability to develop recognizable cognitive thought patterns; or, the child born with cerebral palsy—a disease that limits the body from functioning well even though the brain functions normally in every other way. Certainly, there are limitations to that adage that clearly point out the fact that though we are all born with equal rights in some ways, physical or mental limitations make us far from equal in our ability to take advantage of that adage’s alleged equality. Then examine circumstance; our individual circumstances far expand our abilities from any imagination of equality. Add to that what we do with those circumstances; therein comes the near magic that proves our capabilities are nearly limitless.[hr][/hr]It is true in fact that a land owner may have additional rights than an individual who does not, specifically in respect to the certain tract of land as well as voting rights. [hr][/hr]The man that owns Land has significant rights over the man that does not. The difference is the same as the difference between a king and a tenant in someone else’s kingdom. Only those that have no standing on dominion outside of their physical bodies ever attempt to argue this point and their voice can never overshadow the fact that the argument is ended by the owner of the Land they occupy ordering them to leave.[hr][/hr]God given rights on the other hand do not require a qualifier of land ownership as they are granted by the Creator. In looking at the principle of all men are created equal under God, it is quite clear that it cannot be a requirement to own land in order to have inalienable rights such as liberty. [hr][/hr]Of course, the right of Liberty is directly limited to each individual man’s Domain. The act of exercising liberty absent domain is a trespass and could cost the trespasser his life. Accordingly, not all people have the same level of liberty and landownership (dominion) is an elemental part of that right. Knowledge is also an elemental part of all such rights. The courts have properly ruled, “If you do not know what your rights are you don’t have any.”[hr][/hr]Corp. U.S. is a corporation that operates under maritime law.[hr][/hr]Though it is true, when Corp. U.S. was created in accord with the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, it was charged with the responsibility for carrying out the business needs of the actual government of the United States of America, and whereas some of that responsibility does have to do with Maritime Law (law of the sea), its general provisions and operations are not related to the law of the sea—in fact, most of its relationships and controls are carried out through contracts that have nothing to do with Maritime Law.[hr][/hr]It only has jurisdiction over itself and those whom have contracted away their rights to said corporation.[hr][/hr]Again, though we agree the jurisdiction Corp. U.S. executes is contractual, we disagree with the allegation that anyone has to give up any rights to contract with others, even if the other party is Corp. U.S.[hr][/hr]Here is an excerpt of case law that discusses the nature of a corporation as opposed to an individual:
In Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75, the Supreme Court wrote:…We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbours to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose.

With that in mind, I suggest you read or reread the Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole article posted by Admin.

You mentioned the word “citizen” in your post. The word “citizen” can have different meanings depending on the context in which the word is being used. For instance, a citizen of the United States (Corp. U.S.) is totally different from a Citizen of a certain State of the United States of America.
In the first part of the 14th amendment, Congress wrote:All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The “citizens in this context are subjects and are not sovereign.[hr][/hr]We suggest a review of Myth 6 from our Patriot Mythology page. From that link you will discover that sovereignty is not something you can contract away; rather, sovereignty is your God given inherent nature. Accordingly, what we expect SimplyThinkDreams intended here was to refer to the fact that even though people may maintain their natural inherent sovereign nature, when they contract with Corp. U.S. for citizenship, they contract to act as Corp. U.S. tenants rather than in their sovereign capacities. Accordingly, it is not that they are not sovereign, it is that they use their sovereignty to bind their citizenship within Corp. U.S.’ domain to the terms of their contractual obligations to Corp. U.S.[hr][/hr]Those who ordained and established the Constitution for the United States of America are the sovereigns. Those sovereigns are the people.
In the preamble to the Constitution, the founding fathers wrote:We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the uUnited States of America.
[hr][/hr]You may have noticed that we changed the lower case “c” SimplyThinkDreams originally used for a capital “C”. We did that because the so called “Patriot Community” consistently gets the name of our country incorrect by using the lower case letter here. For a more complete review on that matter we suggest a review of our presentation of Myth 13.[hr][/hr]The hierarchy is as follows:
  1. The People
  2. The Government
  3. The citizen
Regarding the last statement you made, always remember that the burden of proof lies on the accuser and the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Make them prove their jurisdiction by challenging it. Once you challenge jurisdiction it cannot be had until it is proven. No proof, no jurisdiction.[hr][/hr]Though we agree with the principal SimplyThinkDreams provided here at the end of his post, we also know it is much easier to say this works in the courts than it is to experience. 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.
We hope our input inserted here has been helpful to all.
:t^: [hr][/hr]

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Land Owner vs. citizen

Postby Admin » Saturday June 13th, 2009 8:13 pm MDT

:h: FreeManOnLand:
Being on the right tract and winning the game are two distinctly different things.
The only way to win is to leave the opposition with no other choice.

Your first assumption was that Corp. U.S. is “operating under admiralty law”. More correctly stated, they are operating in accord with contract law. You next expressed the presumption that Admiralty Law has to do with water, which is not necessarily accurate unless you equate Admiralty Law with Maritime Law. Maritime Law is exclusively related to the sea. Sometimes people in the so called, “Patriot Movement” refer to Corp. U.S. law as being exclusively Admiralty based; but, that opinion has no basis in fact and will not be recognized by the courts. Their confusion comes from the presumption of the definitions of a “vessel” and “the sea”. If one were to consider virtually anything can be contractually defined as a “vessel”; like, a corporation could be considered a vessel for accomplishing the purpose of taking a people from one financial position to another and a “sea” could be defined as the ocean of possibilities through which such a vessel must travel. But, such concepts do not change the facts. The courts are not going to recognize your assumption that Corp. U.S. is operating exclusively under Admiralty Law.

Again, the more accurate nature of Corp. U.S.’ jurisdiction is Contract Law. In accord with Contract Law, if you agree to the terms of the contract and accordingly agree to a court jurisdiction to hold you accountable for civil actions with criminal punishments, that is the style of law that stands at the basis of Admiralty Law and so the reference is not far off from the way Admiralty Law works, but it is Contract Law that remains the cause.

You then posed your question regarding the necessity of owning land. The answer to your question is found by following the Standard for Review and noticing that when man was originally created, the Creator endowed him with dominion, agency and possession; the three elements that define sovereignty. Of course, you may then notice the limitation of that God given sovereign Right of Dominion is limited to the man’s own body and his knowledge of and control of it. Considering the nearly limitless possibilities of a man’s potential to build, develop and control, it is no surprise Man was then given the command to ‘be fruitful and multiply, replenish and subdue the earth’; followed by the mandate to take dominion over the land, water and air and over the things that are in them. Some call this the “Dominion Mandate”. Thus, if you will go to our Land 101 article and discover the definition of “Land”, you will discover that “Land” and “Dominion” are one in the same.

Accordingly, you may notice that for a man to expand his initial Right to sovereign dominion over himself he must follow that mandate and lawfully “take dominion” over a parcel of Land. Without following that step, man will remain a tenant on someone else’s land. We often ask the question, “What do you call the King of France when he is in England?” The correct answer is, “Tenant”. Though he may be a sovereign in his own domain, he is merely a tenant on the land when he is visiting another man’s Domain.

Even though your God given Sovereignty is something you cannot possibly loose or contract away, the result of such a tenancy is the sovereign lord of one kingdom, though a king in fact, is merely a tenant when he occupies another king’s domain. The same is true for us. Thus, if you do not have your own domain secured with its perfect Title (land patent), then you are at a significant disadvantage from anyone that has such a Domain secured in Land.

You then ask your question regarding the strategy of simply proving who you are by showing your land patent secured right to Land. Of course, our Land 101 article shows that alone will not do either. Virtually all of the privately owned land in the United States of America today is secured by land patent. And, most people that believe they own that land also believe they own the property appurtenant to that land and as such they have otherwise encumbered those properties with contracts to pay mortgages and property tax. If you look a bit closer you will also discover the property ownership documents prove the fact that the actual owner of those properties is a Taxpayer Identification Numbered taxpayer, which proves the real owner is not the man; rather, the real equitable owner of the property is the beneficiary of the trust Social Security Administration created when they provided that taxpayer with their Social Security card and asked if they were willing to hold the same until they wanted it back.

Thus, when most people try to raise the land patent as evidence of their “ownership” the documents speak for themselves and place those people squarely in the position of tenants, like the King of France while visiting England. Our point is, what you are saying is not as simple as it may first seem and raising such arguments in such courts without proper standing, understanding of the facts and evidence that proves your argument without question will simply bury the potential for doing it right behind piles of litigation where people did it wrong. All Corp. U.S. or their courts have to do is deny your obviously incorrect position; they do not have to tell you why because you should already know why—that is certainly the way it works unless you first put them into a position where they have already acknowledged the facts and your standing.

Again, that is where Team Law comes in with the ability to help people learn how to educate themselves correctly, so they can develop a preponderance of evidence of their proper standing, and accordingly have the ability and knowledge that can righteously allow them to prevail regardless of the venue or the opposition.

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
FreeManOnLand
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 24
Joined: Thursday November 6th, 2008 1:41 pm MST

Re: Land Owner vs. citizen

Postby FreeManOnLand » Tuesday June 16th, 2009 2:11 am MDT

That was an extremely excellent post. Thank you admin for putting the time and effort in order to answer my question. I will look more into my new found guidance before my next question.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Land Owner vs. citizen

Postby Admin » Wednesday June 17th, 2009 11:17 am MDT

:h: FreeManOnLand:
You’re welcome; we aim to please—especially when we can inspire people to educate themselves through their own firsthand learning the facts of their own status and the law. That is why we provided the Standard for Review. In fact, it is the reason for everything we have provided to date.

The cold hard reality is, we are all already required to know all of that and the people developing the knowledge they will receive from their own firsthand self-motivated education is the only way to save either ourselves or our nation.

Thus, we welcome everyone to the discovery—we are here to help—and we can use all of the support we can get.

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: No registered users and 1 guest