: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^:

Re: The Strawman

Contracts, Trusts & the corporation sole; what they are & how they relate with one another.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Shawnap
Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Sunday January 15th, 2006 8:20 am MST

Re: The Strawman

Postby Shawnap » Sunday January 15th, 2006 8:38 am MST


This top comment in red was editorially inserted by Admin :h:
Throughout this topical thread Admin inserted and deleted posts for various reasons. One of the main reasons we don’t allow off site links on our site is that we have no control over viruses, spam pop-ups and spyware that can be picked up from such links. Another reason is we have no control over the content on such sites and can thus give no endorsement to them. Most often such links present myths we have already debunked and or they are off point from our purpose. Thus, we simply set a flat policy of not allowing off-site links that are not pre-approved by Admin.
When we find them we delete them and send a message to the registered user that posted them; notifying them of the rule. We hope people will stop posting such links.
All of our editorial inserts are inserted in red similarly to this insert. We hope the information so inserted is helpful to you and to making our forum a better place to learn the truth. :t^:

I noticed on a page, not sure it belongs to Team Law or not but its title is Patriot Mythology I would like to know were you got the information on if the Strawman theory was true or false? In the past three years of my study it all makes since. The Incorporation of the United States puts all of their documents in all capital letters for they have to for they are a fictitious entity, in other words not a living breathing person.
I would like to know were you got your information what law did you find that peoples name in all capital letters were not owned by the Incorporation of the United States, how is the Incorporation of the United States able to put liens and levies on living human beings without the strawman theory?

I await your reply,
Shawnap

User avatar
Citizensoldier
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 106
Joined: Thursday July 28th, 2005 5:34 pm MDT

Re: The Strawman

Postby Citizensoldier » Sunday January 15th, 2006 2:52 pm MST

To better understand the relationship between the man/woman and Corp US, I suggest following this link and reading the Open Forum’s article Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole.

Unfortunately, you are asking for Team Law to prove the impossible - they cannot prove that something doesn't exist. If you disagree with Team Law’s statements concerning the strawman theory, maybe you can show the law that proves such a thing exists?
Inserted by Admin :h: Thank you Citizen Soldier, we could not have said it better ourselves; however, there were a couple of things we should add to reply to Shawnap: As our Patriot Mythology, Sovereignty articles show; we got our information from simple common logic and a review of the facts—no legal theory is necessary to, or can, show that which does not exist —Therefore, we turn your question around and ask you the same thing what law proves the existence of the alleged strawman? Addressing your next question we also turn it around and ask:
paraphrasing what Shawnap wrote:What law did you find that indicates people’s names in all capital letters are owned by Corp. U.S.?
We expect you have no answer for these questions because no such law exists; which is what we believe Citizen Soldier was pointing out; that and the fact that a “strawman” is a non-existent person. Thus the person alleged by the bogus strawman theory is non-existent. Finally, Corp. U.S. placing liens and levies against “taxpayers” that fail to pay what is alleged to be their tax burden if people accept personal accountability for such debts that is their own business; however, we expect if they knew the truth, they would fare much better and nothing about it has to do with any non-existent entity (the mythical strawman). :t^:

Shawnap
Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Sunday January 15th, 2006 8:20 am MST

Re: The Strawman

Postby Shawnap » Monday January 16th, 2006 6:08 am MST

Before I go any further lets make it clear that I am not trying to fight with you. I need to read law that is not posted on your website, I want to read case law not codes.

This is just the basics on the Strawman theory. It is simple but long winded. Fake laws, fake courts, fake judges, and fake government all is an illusions.
Inserted by Admin :h: This post is way off. For example, we have been in those courts and can assure you they are very real—there is nothing “fake” about them their laws or their judges — anyone that wants proof of that fact can just go walking into one of them and do something contrary to those allegedly fake laws and see what happens.

What follows is bogus the proof of which is found on Team Law’s Strawman Myth presentation on Team Law’s website. This information was already reviewed by Shawnap but he still has not comprehended. The Strawman Theory is just that a theory — that is: not proven in fact.. The Strawman Myth is a logical review that proves the Strawman theory is bogus and cannot be proven in fact. Thus that which follows is also bogus, but it may remotely help others understand why such a bogus theory can have such a following.

We once had real laws, implementing regulations. Now we have fake laws called “Codes” which have the “color of law” as it is described in legal terms. These codes are only applicable to corporate fictions that are fake persons. We also once had real titles to property rather than fake titles like deeds, described as the “color of title.” If you really own your land and have an “allodial” or also known as the "Land Patent" title to it, you are not subject to building codes or property taxes. If you only have a deed, the STATE really owns your land, and if you don't pay the “rent,” property taxes, they will take it away from you. You can be assured that the. Rockefellers have real title to their property.
There are two of you, a fake and a REAL you. The real you, was created by your mother and father and God, and if somebody pinches, you will feel it. You’re alive! Surprisingly, there is another "YOU," that was created by the STATE, a corporate fiction. You are a living person and the other YOU is a legal fiction.
Whenever you receive a letter from a creditor, debt collector or IRS, it's always addressed to your name in all capital letters? Well, that's because that letter is not addressed to you but to the fictitious YOU, sometimes referred to as the STRAWMAN. On your personal checks issued to you by your bank, your name and address are imprinted in all capital letters for the same reason. Magnify the line over which you sign your checks. It’s a microscopic phrase: AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE or AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE. When you sign a check you are signing for the STRAWMAN. You see, the bank is a corporate fiction and it can only communicate with another fiction. It can communicate directly with you, the real person, as long as you accommodate the fiction. As long as you volunteer to sign for the fictitious YOU, they have quite a bit of control over you, the real living person.
How did you become the property of the STATE since the Constitution forbids slavery? By deceit and trickery. The STATE created a corporate fiction, your STRAWMAN, with that birth certificate, and as long as you don't know the difference between that STRAWMAN and you, the real, live human being, they will treat you as their creation, a ward of the State, a constructive trust we can metaphorically call the STRAWMAN. You can begin to differentiate yourself from the STRAWMAN by placing a commercial lien against it so that you become the holder-in-due-course of that fictitious entity.

It all makes since when you think about it and read between the lines.
Inserted by Admin:
Herein is the problem with such bogus “theories” — they require “reading between the lines”. The simplest fact remains, there is only one you. Though you may serve in any number of capacities, you remain you alone; not a real you and some other bogus you. Anyone attempting to be you is merely a counterfeit. No amount of study will change this fact. There is no strawman!

Study more on how the states were created for law can not be owned by Incorporation only real live people, it is amazing on how they get away with us all thinking they own it. It all goes back to the law owner has more power than a judge on the Supreme Court, the reason? Well I will let you study that.
This is just the basics of the strawman theory, through study I have found what seems to be like waking up from the matrices. I woke up one morning and unplugged myself. I filed my UCC 1 three years ago and I sent off my letters to take back my strawman. I have personally used my UCC 1 in court and seen it work.
Inserted by Admin:
It is impossible to take something back that you never had to begin with. It is impossible to take something back that does not exist, like a (by definition) non-existent person. Court decisions are made because one party presents a case that the other party does not properly defend against. Our expectation is that if you had an experience in court that favored the bogus strawman theory the positive result was the result of something being presented to the court the judge was not familiar with and that the opposition did not properly defend. Such an experience says nothing about the validity of such a bogus process. Our experience indicates, there are far more judges that would see right through such a bogus argument than there are that would not.

So again I ask you in what law did you find that the strawman theory was false, I would really like to read it and study it. Again I am not posting to fight with you, I am posting because I really want to know, after three long years of study I want to continue to educate myself.

Thank you, Shawnap.
Inserted by Admin:
Again, our response to this request is posted above—go back and reread the Strawman Myth article. We challenge you to show any law that even remotely gives any evidence of the existence of a Corp. U.S. created strawman in the capacity you allege. You cannot because no such thing exists. Finally, you asked for case law that shows the strawman is false—just do a Google search on the subject and you will find plenty on your own — it is never Team Law’s jobto do your research for you. The bottom line: whether you awaken from the effects of this myth on you or not will have no effect on us, but if you don’t awaken, its effects on you could be quite devastating. :t^:


User avatar
Citizensoldier
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 106
Joined: Thursday July 28th, 2005 5:34 pm MDT

Re: The Strawman

Postby Citizensoldier » Monday January 16th, 2006 9:17 am MST

shawnap wrote:This is just the basics on the Strawman theory. It is simple but long winded. Fake laws, fake courts, fake judges, and fake government all is an illusions. We once had real laws, implementing regulations. Now we have fake laws called “Codes” which have the “color of law” as it is described in legal terms. These codes are only applicable to corporate fictions that are fake persons. We also once had real titles to property rather than fake titles like deeds, described as the “color of title.” If you really own your land and have an “allodial” or also known as the "Land Patent" title to it, you are not subject to building codes or property taxes. If you only have a deed, the STATE really owns your land, and if you don't pay the “rent,” property taxes, they will take it away from you. You can be assured that the. Rockefellers have real title to their property.
Although you expressed your view of codes as fake law, they are more appropriately known as contractual terms. It is true they apply to artificial entities; however, they can have REAL affect on the natural man or woman depending on their acting capacities in relation to Corp US or the Corp States. Hence, the reason I posted the Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole link for you to read.
You also state the truth when you wrote you only own your land when you have accepted your assignment of a Land Patent. However, neither the Corp State of X nor Corp US owns your land - the last person who accepted the assignment of the Patent does. To better understand the Land Patent, I suggest reading the Open Forum article at this link: Land 101.

shawnap wrote:Whenever you receive a letter from a creditor, debt collector or IRS, it's always addressed to your name in all capital letters? Well, that's because that letter is not addressed to you but to the fictitious YOU, sometimes referred to as the STRAWMAN. On your personal checks issued to you by your bank, your name and address are imprinted in all capital letters for the same reason. Magnify the line over which you sign your checks. It’s a microscopic phrase: AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE or AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE. When you sign a check you are signing for the STRAWMAN. You see, the bank is a corporate fiction and it can only communicate with another fiction. It can communicate directly with you, the real person, as long as you accommodate the fiction. As long as you volunteer to sign for the fictitious YOU, they have quite a bit of control over you, the real living person.
Yes, the organizations you mention are corresponding with an artificial entity, but it is not an artificial YOU. You are only You - a natural living being. Since those organizations are corresponding with the artificial entity, but you are the person receiving them, then it seems they believe you are acting in some General Partnership capacity or relation on behalf of said artificial entity. By reading Team Law's review of such relationships at the link I posted in my above post, you begin to understand how Corp US interacts with the natural man or woman.

shawnap wrote:How did you become the property of the STATE since the Constitution forbids slavery? By deceit and trickery. The STATE created a corporate fiction, your STRAWMAN, with that birth certificate, and as long as you don't know the difference between that STRAWMAN and you, the real, live human being, they will treat you as their creation, a ward of the State, a constructive trust we can metaphorically call the STRAWMAN. You can begin to differentiate yourself from the STRAWMAN by placing a commercial lien against it so that you become the holder-in-due-course of that fictitious entity.
That is a nice allegation; but: I can find no law nor ruling of fact in a court of law to support the idea the natural man or woman is property of Corp US. If such ownership existed, then what need would Corp US have in gaining control over us through contractual agreements? Why would it need to use the courts to enforce those agreements? An owner of a thing need not do any such thing to control their property. Can you provide such proof in law or court ruling?

shawnap wrote: I filed my UCC 1 three years ago and I sent off my letters to take back my strawman. I have personally used my UCC 1 in court and seen it work. So again I ask you in what law did you find that the strawman theory was false, I would really like to read it and study it.
Can you provide the court transcript to show your use of the UCC1 in the action? What laws or facts did you base the use of the UCC1? What venue was this court action (local, county, STATE of X or Federal)?
Inserted by Admin :h: We have a logical question to add: “Considering that “a strawman” is by definition a non-existent person and that you allege that Corp. U.S. created it—how then could you possibly “Take back your strawman”? If they created the alleged strawman, how did it become yours? The reason you are able to file such documents is simply because you filled out the forms and paid the fee. The reason a court looks at it at all is it is presented as a matter of record. If there is no evidence to the contrary presented it may stand. The simple fact is under any challenge of it your would have to prove the existence of the non- existent strawman and you could not. It is impossible. If no one contests it, it may either stand or the court can notice its non-existence, yet the court is not required to look at it at all unless it is challenged. If it is challenged the bogus strawman theory can do nothing but fail.
All red inserts above are Admin's :t^:


Planetmark
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 18
Joined: Monday September 19th, 2005 11:53 pm MDT

Re: The Strawman

Postby Planetmark » Monday January 16th, 2006 4:54 pm MST

After reading through other forums, and trying to follow all the STRAWMAN discussion and description, my mind can only grasp at this time that what they are calling "STRAWMAN", the folks here at Team Law have identified as the "person" in my wallet, a.k.a. the Social Security Card. There must be some subtlety that I'm missing, though, as it seems both sides are saying the same thing in identifying that "constructive trust" created by the "government" as a fictitious person, but just using different names. Hopefully someone can clear up the difference between the SSN "person", and the STRAWMAN "person". Seems like the same exact description to me.
Inserted by Admin :h: Before we address your hypotheses directly, please note: the trust that was actually created by Social Security Administration is not the Social Security card you carry in your wallet; rather that card is the original property that was held in trust by that Trust.

Our response to your hypotheses is: “Absolutely not! Both sides are not saying the same thing—not even remotely. Team Law is not saying Corp. U.S. created a fictitious (non-existent) person. Trusts are real persons having the capacity to do anything any other person can do. There is a gigantic difference between a “fictitious business entity” (trust, corporation, or partnership) and a “fictitious person” (strawman). Trusts, corporations and partnerships are actual immortal entities that actually exist—they are called fictitious business entities not because they are fictitious in their own natures, rather they are called that because their consciousness was created in contract (a corporation sole), which means that their consciousness is fictitious until the entity borrows consciousness from some other person that has actual consciousness; once that loan is accomplished the entity has actual consciousness just like any other real person—such business entities also possess actual substance at the very least in their written contract as well as in the assets they possess. A Strawman has no substance, no consciousness borrowed or actual and no contract; neither can such a fiction enter into a contract. :t^:


Shawnap
Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Sunday January 15th, 2006 8:20 am MST

Re: The Strawman

Postby Shawnap » Monday January 16th, 2006 5:05 pm MST

Here is a better explanation.

YOUR STRAWMAN (there is no such thing. To address your confusion check this link: Strawman)

STRAMINEUS HOMO: Latin - A man of straw, one of no substance, put forward as bail or surety. This definition comes from Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 1421.
Inserted by Admin :h: So where is the bailment or the surety alleged, if you want to use this definition. In court Corp. U.S. denies created any such relationship.
Following the definition of STRAMINEUS HOMO in Black's we find the next word, STRAWMAN: A front, a third party whom is put up in name only to take part in a transaction. Nominal party to a transaction, one who acts as an agent for another for the purpose of taking title to real property and executing whatever documents and instruments the principal may direct. Person who purchases property for another to conceal identity of real purchaser or to accomplish some purpose otherwise allowed.
Inserted by Admin:
If such a person was so created as “your strawman” then you would have to be the nominal party to any related transaction that you would have to have directed, or this definition’s application would not apply. And attempting to capture such a strawman would prove you were knowingly involved in fraud; which equals jail time on conviction. Oops! This does not sound like a reasonable argument anyone would want to pursue in fear that they could prove their part and Corp. U.S. still denies any part in such. If you had then participated in the process of sending any mail in the process of your setting up the scheme, that mail would qualify as mail fraud involving a federal agency, which is good for 30 years and a one million dollar fine per violation. We would call that a bad argument to pursue!

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines the term "STRAWMAN" as "A weak or imaginary opposition set up only to be easily confuted; or a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction".
Inserted by Admin:
Such fictions (strawmen) do exist though they are usually used like this definition indicates, for the purposes of fraud. They are also a unique class of individuals created for the purpose of doing things like holding accounts in escrow until a real estate contract closes. In such relationships a fictitious person is created by a title company to hold an escrow account open. The person managing the escrow account then maintains the fiction for the strawman only until escrow closes, then the account is closed and the strawman vanishes as quickly as it was created. We have never contested the existence of such fictitious entities as strawmen; we simply say, that is not what Corp. U.S. is doing with people like the Strawman Theory proponents allege. No such thing exists.

The STRAWMAN can be summed up as an imaginary, passive stand-in for the real participant; a front; a blind; a person regarded as a nonentity. The STRAWMAN is a "shadow", a go-between.

Have you ever noticed that whenever you receive a letter from a creditor or debt collector or IRS, it's always addressed to your name in all capital letters? Well, that's because that letter is not addressed to you but to your STRAWMAN. On your personal checks issued to you by your bank, your name and address are imprinted in all capital letters for the same reason.
Inserted by Admin:
No such thing exists. Following your lead, we ask you to prove it. There is no law or application of law that proves this allegation. At best such capitalization is one of poetic license, error, habit or line printer incapability; at worst (if you were ignorant of its creation) it is a totally different person (a trust) as it was created by Social Security Administration. Still, your allegation remains bogus and unprovable.

In the same way, you may have a birth certificate in your possession - it has your name on it - you've had it for decades - you value it - you keep it in your box of important documents. Guess who owns that birth certificate. Of course, it is the STATE who owns that birth certificate. At the very best, you may get a certified copy. The original is always kept in the Bureau of Vital Records in the State you were born, in the Department of Commerce. Do you know why in the Department of Commerce? Because your birth certificate, along with all the other birth certificates, is the collateral for Federal Reserve Notes.

Effectively, your birth certificate is the State's certificate of title over you.
Inserted by Admin:
Poppycock! Birth certificates make no such claim. While they are made in accord with the doctrine of Parens Patria, under which the Corp. State may be your parent, they have no capacity to own, or claim ownership of, people. You may find the Family Ties article
WARN newsletter Vol. 1 Iss. 1 interesting; it goes into that very matter, but alas it has nothing to do with any alleged strawman.
Now, how did you become chattel property of the STATE (being as the Constitution supposedly forbids slavery)?
The short answer is by deceit and trickery.
Inserted by Admin; we would say ignorance and apathy on the part of the people.
The STATE created a corporate entity, your STRAWMAN, with that birth certificate and, as long as you don't know the difference between that STRAWMAN and you the real, live human being, the least common denominator is the STRAWMAN.
Inserted by Admin: This bit of unsupported allegation doesn’t even make sense. First of all, again if the alleged State created it then how did it become yours (we certainly know no such thing is ours), the rest of the statement seems to be a nonsensical quasi mathematical equation we can make no logical sense of. Please take no offense but our the statement simply seems to have no meaning.

Inserted by Admin: A paragraph was deleted here for its non compliance with our
Forums rules. No unapproved off site links. This deletion took nothing away from this post.

Now I have proven that the Strawman theory is in the law and how it was created.
Inserted by Admin: No, you have not! Thus far you have proven nothing. As evidence of that fact review what you have alleged as it you were on trial. Thus far you have provided no evidence. Thus far you have only made spurious allegations based upon what you have garnered from three years of alleged research, but thus far you have presented nothing but an unsupported idea, which if it were challenged by the party you allege did it your theory falls flat on its face because the burden of proof falls upon you and proving the existence of that which does not exist is impossible.
The case I won in court you would have to pay for the transcripts, but I can tell you this, I entered my UCC 1 into evidence and when the judge saw that I had a UCC 1, he dismissed the case and I walked out of the court room with my son with me.
Inserted by Admin: With what you have presented here, you have no idea what happened in the courtroom. All you know is the judge dismissed the case. You have shared nothing regarding the cause of the case or the pleadings that were presented to the court or what level of court the case was. Thus your experience without the details means nothing here. We are pleased that you prevailed. Too bad you don’t seem to know why. We are not presenting this challenge to the cause for the dismissal here because we want to know more about your case. We are simply saying what you presented here is meaningless with any regard for the bogus strawman theory.
I have shared all I can with you, it is up to you to finish the study and learn the truth.
Have a great day, Shawnap.
Inserted by Admin: We certainly hope you do learn the truth and we hope we all continue on the path of truth. Still that path is obviously not the path of such bogus theories as the alleged strawman theory. It is not enough to dwell in legal theory. We must learn our History and Law. We must know who we are and then live accordingly. The Strawman theory is a gigantic waste of time and we hope no one who has read our Patriot Mythology page spends another moment of wasted time in pursuit of such foolishness. :t^:

Sedonabear
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 8
Joined: Saturday August 6th, 2005 8:04 pm MDT

Re: The Strawman

Postby Sedonabear » Wednesday January 18th, 2006 10:45 am MST

I believe the "strawman" is a very real legal phenomenon. After all, the word 'strawman' does have a legal definition, so it is used to refer to something, and every definition of it that I look up always suggests some kind of fraud. Barron's legal dictionary shows it exactly like this "STRAWMAN, [PERSON]". Clearly there is a link between the strawman and what the statutes refer to as a 'person'. Barron's goes on to say that a strawman is created for "accomplishing some purpose that is not otherwise permitted." Look it up. It is pretty clear to me.

The states cannot deny any rights or property to Citizens, or compel any performance from them. That is why the statutes and courts all deal strictly with "persons" and "residents". There has to be a strawman to create the presumption of this nexus between this unlawful system and the human being. [shock]
Inserted by Admin :h: Don’t fall into the trap that some have believing that dictionaries are definitive. They are not. They are exquisitely limited. Also don’t fall into the trap that says that a word fits all definitions and all uses at all times. They don’t. An example of a perfectly fine, legal and lawful use of a strawman is an escrow account. Someone is entrusted with an escrow account but the account itself can do nothing, it has no substance. It can exercise no action. It is far less than a trust, yet its holder is entrusted with it. Beyond that it is like a drawer. You open it, you put things in it, you take things out of it and when you are done with it, it disappears. It is a non existent person.

On the other hand what is going on in our country today has nothing to do with any allegation of a strawman. What is going on is pure and simple. It is easily understood. And, we are not going to divulge the whole of it here. If you want that information you can read it for yourselves on our Beneficiary Forum article found at this link: Social Security Administration created Trusts.
:t^:


Shawnap
Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Sunday January 15th, 2006 8:20 am MST

Re: The Strawman

Postby Shawnap » Wednesday January 18th, 2006 11:20 am MST

Sedonabear :o ,
Thanks so much for your post. Would you mind sharing were you got your study from for I am always opened minded to learning more about the truth.
With the study I am doing not only is the Strawman theory true but also the Echelon theory, Patriot Act, Marshal Law and NSA which I saw on the news last night blew me away. With the fake money we use in this country, the Federal Reserve made sure of that, they had to come up with an accounting on the Federal Reserve there was no other way than to create the Strawman. It is totaly amazing, Shawnap
Inserted by Admin :h: This topical thread is totally amazing! We wish we had been here to nip this one in the bud. At this point we had to delete several unauthorized links to several websites each one as bad as the next. We apologize to all of our Open Forum participants for not being available to prevent this thread from going on in this way. Once and for all: there is no strawman! If there was it would do you no good to pursue it because the theory cannot be defended in court. All the opposition has to do to defeat the allegation is deny their participation in it; then the burden of proof shifts to you to prove the existence of the non existent alleged strawman. Just because people are ignorant of what happened, does not mean that which is impossible happened. There is no strawman.
Our money is real. It is made of gold and silver. Corp. U.S. does not use money. They use contractual debt—they have to because they are bankrupt—it has nothing to do with strawmen. It has to do with contracts—period. Wake up people! :t^:


User avatar
Citizensoldier
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 106
Joined: Thursday July 28th, 2005 5:34 pm MDT

Re: The Strawman

Postby Citizensoldier » Sunday January 22nd, 2006 12:15 am MST

You guys may want to review the results of this case to see what happens when you believe in the "strawman" theory.

Now, I have shown how the courts rule on such theory, so please - show proof of their recognition of it in your proceeding.
Inserted by Admin :h: We deleted two links to websites that Citizensoldier showed where cases were lost for following this ridiculous theory. One of the main reasons we don’t allow off site links on our site is that we have no control over viruses, spam pop-ups and spyware that can be picked up from such links. We simply delete them rather than allow them on our forum. We hope people will stop posting such links. :t^:


Sedonabear
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 8
Joined: Saturday August 6th, 2005 8:04 pm MDT

Re: The Strawman

Postby Sedonabear » Sunday January 22nd, 2006 5:35 pm MST

Shawnap,
Sorry for not replying sooner, but I don't check this forum very often.

With regard to your question about my research, it all started with my obsessive interest in this creature known as the 14th Amendment "citizen of the United States", and it all started to unravel from there.

As I stated previously, if you look up the definition of "Strawman" in Barron's Legal Guide Law Dictionary by Steven H. Gifis, you will see a very good definition there.
Inserted by Admin :h: This note was posted here as an example of why we delete offsite links. The posted that was deleted here alleged that there was no marketing going on at the link and alleged that it was posted for research material only. We checked the link. The first thing we saw was the advertisement for a book. Next there was information from a site that plagiarized our work and promoted their plagiarism by getting people to use some proprietary materials from Team Law without Team Law’s support. The result was disastrous for those that did not have our support, still that ruthless site continues to market those materials without our support when they know the damage they caused. Sedonabear, makes this post knowing our policy on such links.
Admin wrote:The purpose of our Open Forum is: to eliminate e-mail to and from Team Law. The idea is, if people can ask us their questions here 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 to send us similar e-mail; thus we can disseminate massive amounts of information without repeating ourselves much. We reserve our Open Forum to our work and effort to save our country; therefore, we also reserve it from being a marketplace for others to spread their contrary ideas or services, thus we restrict the forum from external links unless such links are first authorized by Team Law’s Admin via private messages.
We find such continued abuse of our Open Forum system reprehensible and it certainly is not a demonstration of good will or honor.

Hope that helps.

For anyone who dares to do even a little research, the strawman phenomenon becomes much more than a theory, it is a creature of law. "Theory" only becomes applicable when attempting to understand how the strawman [person] principles are applied in court.
Inserted by Admin :h: The fact that definitions of “strawman” exist does not exemplify their use in any particular situation. :t^:
All this stuff comes from Greek theater. A "person" is the character that the actor portrays, the mask or makeup that is the character is called the "persona", the actor is called a "hypocrite". If you look up 42 USC Sec. 1982 the "law" makes a clear distinction between a "person" and a "white citizen". Huh? Yes! look it up. By "law", if you are a "white citizen", you are NOT a "person".

Courts will not acknowledge the strawman because it is not in their advantage to do so.
Inserted by Admin :h: Is the author of this the same guy that was asking us to prove our challenge with law or court cases?
The intent is to deceive, and they rely the doctrine of plausible deniability to dismiss these arguments as "frivolous".
Inserted by Admin :h: They are frivolous—without question. All it takes to overthrow the case is for the opposition to say no we didn’t ,then the plaintiff is left with the necessity to prove that which does not exist. Filing a case you cannot prove is the very definition of frivolous.
But what would you expect from a "judge" who often receives a portion of the fine that they order you to pay. In Arizona that extorted money is statutorily defined as "judicial productivity credits". Sure, they'll deny and dismiss the strawman. Otherwise their criminal enterprise would be exposed.

As far as copyrighting your name, that is not what is taking place. The law is that you can copyright ANY legal fiction and claim exclusive right to it for profit use. The copyright is used to force the court to acknowlege your Christian birth name, and not give them any abiltiy to presumptively or constructively declare you to be a corporation, and also in an attempt to force them into a common law jurisdiction. Why? Read Hale v. Henkel US Supreme Court and you will see.
Inserted by Admin :h: The problem here is that you cannot copyright your name anymore than you can copyright the title to a book. Imagine someone attempting to copyright the name “John Smith”. It simply cannot be done.
As an example, consider that E.F. Hutton is a copyrighted legal fiction.
Inserted by Admin :h: Wrong. The name is a trademarked trade name for a business. There is a gigantic difference between a trademark and a copyright.
The founder, Edward Francis Hutton, decided to use his birth name to identify his corporation, and that "name" was rendered into a legal fiction by filing various documents in order to form and identify the corporation, but not Mr. Hutton himself. By law the courts can treat E.F. Hutton Corporation much differently that they can treat Mr. Hutton, as you will see from Hale v. Henkel. One is a "person", and the other is a "white citizen" and a natural human man.

So, what if I had the same birth name? Could I use it to identify a corporation which I had founded? Not without getting sued for copyright infringement.
Inserted by Admin :h: Wrong. There is no copyright.
What if someone were to personally sue Mr. Hutton? The court documents would have to reflect the distinction between the legal fiction and the real man. So, us "redemptors" believe that it is important to declare to the court, "I am not a corporation", especially when you can find state statutes that clearly reveal that you are presumed to be a corporation until you deny it by affidavit.
Inserted by Admin :h: Personal beliefs are irrelevant to courts. Now, notice the warped logic here. The example here was given of a man doing all of the legal paperwork to incorporate a business at the State level and then jumping through the hoops of establishing a tradename with its respective trademarks all of this to secure the corporations claim to its tradename. Now he shifts the paradigm to allege that he is copyrighting his name to prove he is not a corporation. That is exactly why he alleged the corporation copyrighted its name. However, that didn’t work either because they didn’t and you cannot trademark your own personal name. This is simply another bogus argument. And for what purpose. He already admitted that the courts recognize the theory as frivolous. That means it will not work for anything other than to give the court cause to order a psych evaluation.
We believe that the "law" has constructively created a corporation out of your "name", and the net affect is that that is the way they treat you. But of course, if I walk into a court and try to explain to the "judge" that she is using my strawman in such-n-such a way and that I'm going to charge her x amount of money each time she does that, I can expect the "courts" to retaliate because they are vicious, violent, and lawless creatures. There are other ways of dealing with that.
Inserted by Admin :h: At this point we have lost it. Again, if the courts won’t—in fact can’t—recognize this legal theory, what is the point? Where can you go with it? No where. Again, is this poster really the same guy that was asking us to show where in the law or in court cases is such a thing allowed? Don’t be fooled by such balderdash people. The only reason we have not already deleted this thread is because so many of you have read it and the thread has grown so large. Our hope is that from our review you can see the foolishness in such frivolity and the wisdom in what we already presented on the matter on our Patriot Mythology page. :t^:
Almost all of the power the government uses to usurp authority comes from presumptive, constructive, and hidden contracts or trusts, based on the debt, and the non-existent legal fiction, and this started after the Northern (Federal) Victory in the "Civil War". This war was mostly about increasing the jurisdiction of the "United States", which was a subsidiary of the East India Company of England, the situs of which is DC. If you don't believe this, compare the flags of the United States and the East India Company, and look up the definition of "United States" in 28 United States Code under the section that says "debt".

The greatest enemy of the republican united states of America was, is, and will always be England. All wars, and all debt flow from England.
Inserted by Admin :h: We also showed this Patriot Myth, the name of this country is the United States of America We hope our inserted editorial review of these posts are helpful to you.

User avatar
Citizensoldier
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 106
Joined: Thursday July 28th, 2005 5:34 pm MDT

Re: The Strawman

Postby Citizensoldier » Sunday January 22nd, 2006 11:34 pm MST

I am confused by the staunch support people give to theories without any proof of its existence. Unfortunately, the "students" of Redemption theory can only rely on the word of its "teachers" to lend it credibility. When pressed for facts showing validity of their theory, these "teachers" only provide hearsay, half-truths, and conjecture. They conveniently brush aside presenting proof of any judicial or quasi-judicial credibility by claiming:
sedonbear wrote:Courts will not acknowlege the strawman because it is not in their advantage to do so. The intent is to deceive, and they rely the doctrine of plausible deniability to dismiss these arguments as "frivolous". But what would you expect from a "judge" who often receives a portion of the fine that they order you to pay. In Arizona that extorted money is statutorily defined as "judicial productivity credits". Sure, they'll deny and dismiss the strawman. Otherwise their criminal enterprise would be exposed.

If such a theory is not acknowledged in a judicial proceeding, what use can it be in prevailing during such? Can anyone say The Emperor has no Clothes?

I have already posted the outcome of relying on such theory in my previous post; however, State v. Lutz, 2003-Ohio-275 provides the results another practictioner of Redemption theory experienced in Ohio. Ronald E. Lutz was sentenced to 17 years in prison during 2001.

I challenge those who are championing such theory to cease posting hearsay from various websites and either provide credible findings in law or personal experience in support of it.

User avatar
Citizensoldier
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 106
Joined: Thursday July 28th, 2005 5:34 pm MDT

Re: The Strawman

Postby Citizensoldier » Tuesday January 24th, 2006 8:08 am MST

sedonabear wrote:You speak as though I, as well as other "redemptors" have something we have to prove to you. I don't have to prove anything to you, and you're not even being clear as to what it is you want proven.
If you review the original posting, it was shawnap who requested proof the "strawman" theory is baseless. The specific request was:
shawnap wrote:I need to read law that is not posted on your website, I want to read law that is proven law not codes.
To which I responded, it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. Furthermore, the law and common sense place the burden of proof on the party claiming the existence of something to show evidence of its existence. So, I simply asked for shawnap to prove the existence of the "strawman".
sedonabear wrote:If I were to ask you to prove the existence of any legal fiction, or theory, by fact alone, you are going to fail just as badly as your ego wants me to fail to prove to you that there is a strawman. It is purely abstract because that is the way THEY want it to be.
The fallacy of your notion above is based on the erroneous assertion that something purely abstract cannot be supported by facts because they are not physical. By your measure, thoughts are not "real" because they are not physical. Or, what about laws themselves?
sedonabear wrote:Prove to me, by facts alone, that a state exists. You can't. All you can provide is legal opinion, either yours or someone else's.
Dictionary.com says:
A fact is something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed. In law, it is the aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence.

I can prove to you that both, the original jurisdiction states and the Corp states exist. Evidence of the original jurisdiction states existence include the Constitution for the United States of America, each of the original jurisdiction state constitutions, numerous federal and state court rulings, and the many writings of the founders on the subject to name a few. Evidence of the Corp state existence include the many officers and employees that lend their consciousness to the corporation, its ability to sue and be sued in court, its ability to buy, sell, and convey real property, and their corporate constitutions among other things.
sedonabear wrote: But a legal opinion is not a factual description of reality. Neither is a strawman. It is only an idea in someone's head, or fantasy. It is a very dangerous fantasy, just like Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
I never said legal opinion is fact; however, findings in a court of law are not based on opinion, but the facts presented therein. Like you said, the strawman is only an idea in someone's head, or fantasy. The so called evidence you give to prove its existence are:
sedonabear wrote:As I stated, if you want "proof" of the strawman, go look it up in a law dictionary, as I suggested before. (You hadn't indicated that you had done that in you last post.)
I once thought law dictionaries provided evidence of something; however, Team Law was able to correct my misunderstanding of what a law dictionary provides:
admin wrote:To understand definitions from dictionaries it helps to learn how such lexicons are developed. Dictionaries do not define meanings. Common usage defines meaning and dictionaries are created to present a summary of such common meanings as a reference. Usage dictates meaning; and, over time (as usage of a term becomes common) lexicographers record such common usage into dictionaries. A law dictionary is simply a specialized lexicon made to show common usages in the law of a day. The most important thing to remember when using them is that dictionaries are neither absolute, nor complete. That is to say, just because a word is printed in a dictionary does not mean that the definitions there are absolute, infallible or the only usage possible. When using specialized dictionaries, like Black’s Law Dictionary, it is most important to realize that it is not law. It is not even a secondary source of law. Rather, it is simply a reference aid.
Your other evidence:
sedonabear wrote: That said, if I were really put to task, I guess I would produce a birth certificate, or my Socialist Security Card, since any piece of legal paper with someone's given name printed thereon and promoted as being "identification" legally creates a strawman [person] if it is used by any agency for its own purposes that doesn't involve your permission.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 6th edition:
Birth is the act of being wholly brought into the world. The whole body must be detached from that of the mother, in order to make the birth complete.

A certificate is a writing by which an officer or other person bears testimony that a fact has or has not taken place.

Given the above definitions, the birth certificate is simply a writing that bears testimony of a completed birth.

Team Law has already given the standard for review to understand the relationships involved with the SSA number and card at: Standard for Review
sedonabear wrote:Personally I think it is absolutely insane that anyone would even feel like they have to consider that the "government" has created this legal fiction from their name to use against them, and then have to try to find legal remedies buried within this web of lies. That is why the Constitution attempted to reserve Common Law for the People, so the "government" couldn't develop such fraudulent constructs as the "strawman".
The critical mistake in your statements above is in the belief that you are dealing with government. Corp US is not a government - only a private corporation.
sedonabear wrote:Treat the subject like 'additional information', and quit acting like I have some obligation toward you...
If you are going to present your theory as a credible legal remedy, then you should at least be able to provide evidence to support it.
sedonabear wrote:My experience confirms to me that the strawman is a very real weapon that the government, et al, uses against the People, and that there are legal principles wherein we find our remedy.
And all I am asking is provide me the legal principles you speak of and what experience you are referring to confirm such a bogus theory?
Inserted by Admin :h: At this point in this topical thread, of necessity we deleted several comments that were exchanged between several parties. The deletions were made because the posts did not comply with the purpose of our Open Forum. As communication continued we found additional value began to appear so again we did not simply delete the topic though it is slated for possible deletion in the not too distant future. Again these deletions were not make because of any allegation that the posts had no value, simply that this is not the place for them. :t^:

Hobie
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 8
Joined: Wednesday December 21st, 2005 12:55 am MST

Re: The Strawman

Postby Hobie » Thursday January 26th, 2006 5:02 pm MST

Hi, Sedonabear -
Earlier in the thread you mentioned the apparent need for further "watering of the Tree of Liberty" at this point. I have some faith, still, that that will not prove necessary. One of the things that has brought me to the Team Law sites and forum is Team Law's information on the seating of original jurisdiction governors and where that might lead.

Okay - we've expanded the "field" of the conversation quite a bit, which is good, I think. Perhaps we could bring it now to a more nuts-and-bolts level.

You mentioned earlier your conviction that Birth Certificates are more than a record of the full birth of a human being, and that they move quickly into the role of commercial instruments. You mentioned that you found the name of a Bank Note company on your own Birth Certificate.

Is not a "bank note company" one that specializes in printing and providing particular forms of document? Why then take the next step and conclude there is "commercial value" in this particular document and that someone other than the human being named on the document is making use of its commercial value...?

BTW, do you have your own original Birth Certificate in your possession? I find I have only a "Certificate of Registration", here, not the Birth Certificate itself. I see on a related slip of paper a "State File Number". Should I expect my own Birth Certificate would be found, still in the state and in that file number...? Or is it your understanding that the original document has been sent elsewhere...?

--hobie

Sedonabear
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 8
Joined: Saturday August 6th, 2005 8:04 pm MDT

Re: The Strawman

Postby Sedonabear » Thursday January 26th, 2006 9:01 pm MST

That is also why I took an interest in Team Law. I had come accross the organization very early in my 14th Amendment citizen research, and then much later a friend of mine showed me a video of Eric Madsen called "Do You Own Your Land", and that filled in more pieces of the puzzle.

It also furthered my research into "original jurisdiction" and what that all meant. I am sure that it would have an extremely powerful effect to reseat the original jurisdiction government, but I believe that if such a movement were to gain serious momentum the United States would react to it. However, I do support it all the way. You just have to take chances if you want to achieve something meaningful.

And, I hope you're right about the Tree of Liberty. I don't want anything really horrible like another revolution or civil war to happen, and frankly I think it would fail in a lot of ways.

Regarding the birth certificate, and further thought on the redemption stuff, you have to think of it like a mystery novel. Kind of a "who dunnit". You're looking for clues to solve the mystery, and deductive reasoning is a very big part of it.

At some point you have to take all of your clues and what you've learned and look at the net effect of what has happened, and suddenly you (imagine you) know what's going on.

Your question is definately a good one, about making the leap, but as I stated earlier in my exchange with whats his name, when a document is registered with the US Department of Commerce, money changes hands. There are account set-offs and adjustments that are made, and transaction between the administrative state governments, the United States and the Fed.

Here is the mission statement from the Dept of Commerce:

SECTION 2. MISSION, FUNCTIONS AND AUTHORITY.
.01 The historic mission of the Department is “to foster, promote, and develop the foreign and domestic commerce” of the United States. This has evolved, as a result of legislative and administrative additions, to encompass broadly the responsibility to foster, serve, and promote the Nation’s economic development and technological advancement. The Department fulfills this mission by:
  1. Participating with other Government agencies in the creation of national policy, through the President’s Cabinet and its subdivisions.
  2. Promoting and assisting international trade.
  3. Strengthening the international economic position of the United States.
  4. Promoting progressive domestic business policies and growth.
  5. Improving comprehension and uses of the physical environment and its oceanic life.
  6. Ensuring effective use and growth of the Nation’s scientific and technical resources.
  7. Acquiring, analyzing, and disseminating information regarding the Nation and the economy to help achieve increased social and economic benefit.
  8. Assisting states, communities, and individuals with economic progress.
What agency conducts the census? Department of Commerce.

If the census was to be conducted for the purposes of numbering and selecting representatives, why is it that the Dept. of Commerce is doing the census? and why are birth certificates "registered" there? Because before your birth is registered, the relationship between the child and the United States is relatively clean legally as far as the child's natural birthrights and inherent sovereignty. Their relationship is an international one. After registration the child enters the domestic domain of the United States, and has for all intents and purposes "crossed an ocean" and docked in a US port of entry, which is an exclusively federal jurisdiction, and as long as the presumptive legal issues of birth registration are never rebutted, the child never leaves this jurisdiction, unless he travels out of the country. It is simply another way to rope people into this foreign jurisdiction, because congress can only claim to own all the property if they are talking about things within their domain. A state Citizen and his property are not within their legislative or declaratory domain, but he has the right under the 13th amendment to waive all of his rights.
Inserted by Admin :h:
Guess again! Better yet go to the
WARN newsletter volume 1 issue 1 and read the Family Ties article. It might give you a clue as to what is going on with birth records. The problem with your theory here is the same as the source for your strawman theory; which source is reading through the lines of the theory’s proponents then with a mind tainted towards the myths you review the facts and maybe a little code, only following the theory’s proponents guidance through the code. While you do that again, read between the lines making up whatever you might imagine to support the bogus theory. That kind of study will never win our country back. Instead you have to do your own research with a clear mind studying the history as well as the law and accepting the maxim of law that says “a document speaks for itself.” Such study must always be made in accord with the Standard for Review. Such study also requires that you forget such mythological theories as you have presented here, because they have little chance of letting you discover the facts. Once you have learned the truth you will be empowered with the tools of restoring our country and not coming off to people you meet like some kind of nut they want nothing to do with. People want to know the truth. They know something must be done. The truth empowers them with understanding that helps them. The myths never do that. They just keep the people blind to their own freedom slaves to their own ignorance.


Once you enter their domain through the 13th amendment, however, it is considered a voluntary relationship and it applies to you, even if you travel among the various states because they are TIN bearing, registered subsidiaries of the Corp. US, and you are just another legal fiction moving around in their matrix. I has nothing to do with being on "the land" anymore. That becomes a euphemism.

Why is the flag of the Department of commerce emblazoned with strictly maritime symbols.

Another important thing to look up in Black's 4th is "Law of the Land".

The United States borrows "money" from the Fed every time a child is reported to be born, and the Dept. of Commerce is the agency responsible for all of the above. The birth cert. is evidence of the obligation that is created, for which they function like the back office level of a financial institution in charge of the bankruptcy receivership with respect to the Fed. Do you see any reference to its role in conducting the census for the purposes of selecting the correct number of state representatives?
Inserted by Admin:
At some point we hope you will start to follow your own request from previous posts in this topical thread, that is: show any law, court case or other facts that indicate such mere allegations that make you look the fool. The rule of law on such matters is again: “a document speaks for itself.” Yet, when we look at the documents you refer to they make no mention of such. There is also no mention of such in either the laws or court rulings. However, the Federal reserve systems loans are recorded and none show what you allege—thus anyone that wants to waste their time trying to prove such wild innuendo can easily prove it false. Those loans are generated specifically in accord with a specific allowance (as nefarious its miniscule fractional reserve construct may be) in their openly published process. None of which follows the patter you allege. We are not going to go into what that is exactly because again that is far outside of the purpose of our Open Forum. The only reason we did not simply delete this topical thread is that is sat so long on our Open Forum that we needed to respond to correct misgivings any of the more gullible of our readers may have taken form posts in this topical thread like this one.

So yes, a bank note company can simply produce a particular paper instrument, but once they are produced who gets them and how are they used? And why must a bank note company produce birth certificates.
Inserted by Admin:
They don’t, any printer will do; however the answer to your question is found in the reasonableness that any government should use a good quality of paper, not easily copied of forged, to secure the origination of such instruments; which are used as the main form required to prove identity in relation to securing vise in most countries of the world. Thus, as criminals have greater designs to steal identities, for their own purposes, governments will have greater needs to secure the uniqueness of their documents that prove where a person was born.

Remember that family births, deaths, marriages, etc., were recorded in the family bible because these were events that for most people in the us of A were between them and their creator, or God. For the state to claim to have a dominion in these things would've been considered a serious over breadth and to some degree blasphemy.

This is all based on my research and it absolutely answers the question I faced recently when I was charged with a misdemeanor traffic violation and I asked the judge:

Me: I am being charged with a crime, correct?
Her: Yes.
Me: And you're telling me I do NOT have a right to a trial by jury?
Her: Yes.
Me: And you are also telling me that I do NOT have the right to the assistance of counsel, correct?
Her: Yes.

Is that consistent with the constitution that she swears an oath to?
Inserted by Admin:
Yes, she was correct if you knew what was actually going on. You were charged with a civil violation in admiralty defined as a criminal breach of the contract. Such situations have no constitutional protection like actual crimes. The judge was right.

Is she treating my like a common law, living soul, Citizen of the state, or is she treating me like a corporation, legal fiction, strawman, diminished capacity citizen, subject, etc.?
Inserted by Admin:
She was treating the party the agreed to the terms of the license exactly how the law says to treat them. It has nothing to do with the man or any natural right or constitutional secured rights.

We know what the Constitution supposedly prohibits the courts from doing. So, how are they doing it and legally getting away with it?
Inserted by Admin:
Now, that is a reasonable question! The answer to it is available to any Team Law beneficiary, the specifics of such beneficiary support are not available on this forum but are available on the Beneficiary Forum.

There has to be a link. Has to be.

No one has their original birth certificate. That goes to the department of commerce. I have the hospital souvenir certificate, and the state registrar has the official copy that I have a copy of.

There is a lot more I could insert on this topic, but I have to go. Later.
Inserted by Admin:
This topic has now run far afield from the strawman theory where it started and we apologize to our readers for leaving such bogus theories posted here with no responses from us to bring this topical thread in line with what we have always shown—the facts in line with the law. This subject of birth records is handled in our WARN
newsletter as linked above. If you have interest in it, you may go there to read what actually happens. The earning ability of the trusts created by Social Security Administration are tied to Corp. U.S.’ debt and that earning ability is tied to the census records; the ties are simply not made in the way suggested and the binds so related are not binds on the people of our country. Learning the truth of such things can make us free only if we apply the truth in accord with law and hold the powers of governance accountable to the law; which we help people to do. The last question asked by sedonabear gives us hope that he is still looking for the truth. It is the question that opens the door to understanding. The solution is learning and that learning starts with the Standard for Review presented at the lead topic in this Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole forum.
We hope our review is helpful to you and that you realize that though our responses may seem harsh at times (due to the importance of eliminating such myths from tainting your understanding of the truth) our purpose is behind your awakening to the truth and securing our country with its original jurisdiction government. :t^:


User avatar
Tyler.Durden
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 48
Joined: Thursday July 28th, 2005 4:13 pm MDT

Re: The Strawman

Postby Tyler.Durden » Friday January 27th, 2006 12:03 pm MST

sedonabear wrote:There has to be a link. Has to be.

Did you ever think that this was the point the citizensoldier was trying help you see, but could not tell you outright due to his contractual relationship with Team Law and his capacity as a Team Law beneficiary?

Regards...
May God grant us the wisdom to discover right, the will to choose it, and the strength to make it endure.

Sedonabear
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 8
Joined: Saturday August 6th, 2005 8:04 pm MDT

Re: The Strawman

Postby Sedonabear » Friday January 27th, 2006 1:36 pm MST

No, that never occurred to me. How could it.

Understand, I am generally not a nasty, or insulting man, and if Citizensoldier is genuine, and not trying to undermine the ongoing investigation of what the "government" does, and how it operates, and what remedies we may have, he has my most sincere apology. But, when one considers the type of insanity being foisted upon the people, nothing is off the table, including the strawman/redemption garbage. I say "garbage" because there are many other things that I would rather spend my time doing than having to learn all this stuff. It is time consuming and counterproductive to living a happy and fulfilling life.

What I got from Citizensoldier's tone was that people who even entertain such ideas are lunatics and have a mental problem. He wasn't being nice, and allowing others freedom of thought. Thats why Hobie and I seem to have more productive and meaningful communication. We exchange information, answer each other's questions, look things up, and discuss what we find.
Inserted by Admin :h: Knowing Citizensoldier for some time we can say you do owe him an apology. There is no doubt about it. In fact we were quite pleased that he gave you such excellent input, as good or better than we would have. Still you dogmatically continued on your path of ignoring every element of law, fact and reason. It was quite obvious that your brain is clean on that matter because no amount of logic or reason was getting through. That is not the purpose of our Open Forum. You might have caught a bit of displeasure in such foolishness in our commentary, that is now inserted in the topical thread. In the future you would do well to realize that this is not a free speech forum, it is a private forum that is open to people’s inquiries to Team Law. That is its purpose. You have your blog site. If you want to entertain free speech discussions on whatever topic you desire, that is likely a good place to do it. While Team Law’s Open Forum’s purpose is to: eliminate e-mail to and from Team Law. The idea is, if people can ask us their questions here 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 to send us similar e-mail; thus we can disseminate massive amounts of information without repeating ourselves much. We reserve our Open Forum to our work and effort to save our country; therefore, we also reserve it from being a marketplace for others to spread their contrary ideas or services, thus we restrict the forum from external links. We hope you will adjust your understanding to these necessities for posting and using our Open Forum in the future. Thank you.
We expect Citizensoldier was attempting to help us out by hinting to you that your dogmatic presentment was off track from the purpose of our Open Forum. We would not have been quite so polite though our more direct communications would have taken place in our private message service. Though we have no problem with freedom of thought, that is not what this forum is for. We welcome your participation on our site but ask you to reserve your comments to inquiries into our work and not use our Open Forum as your soapbox of ideas and argument. :t^:

In my reference to Team Law video, "Do You Own Your Land", the advice that is given up front in the presentation by Eric Madsen is something to the effect that you should never believe anything that anyone tells you, and that you should do all your own research and arrive at your own conclusions about things.

Well, I've done that. But what you're suggesting is that if I become a Team Law beneficiary, which I hope to do, I will be contractually bound to not discuss my research and experience in this forum? I would like to how that works.

Excuse me, but are we after truth here, or not?

I was a victim of the discredited philosophy and propaganda that is spoon-fed to every school child, and then I later actually joined the military to "defend the constitution", having no clue what that even meant. I later learned that I did more harm than good, undertook to find truth and to heal my ignorance, and to some degree help others heal theirs, even to the point of being an irritation sometimes because of the deadly nature of what we're dealing with. Since the onset of the post 9/11 Nazi SS style military dictatorship that has an iron grip on the psyche and property of the American People, I am like a rabid dog when it comes to defending real freedom, but mostly my own. I can, and do, take on public officials whenever I have an opportune moment to do so, and I stand behind friends in court, watching the process and helping them in whatever way I can, when asked.
Inserted by Admin :h: we are after the truth; however, that does not meant that we get sidetracked. In fact at Team Law we are rarely if ever sidetracked. We learn the truth and then we apply it. We welcome reasonableness, but what you presented regarding the topic of this thread is not reasonable. There is nothing reasonable about the Strawman theory. It simply doesn’t work and it has destroyed lives. That’s exactly why we spoke out so strongly in our commentaries to your dogmatic espousal of the matter in the face of all that was presented to you that should have caused you to awaken. We don’t give up on people when they act so dogmatic, but it is kind of like the story of getting a mule’s attention—if it won’t respond you just get a bigger stick to get its attention with. At the end of the day, it is all about quality of life. The quality of life is better when you understand what is truly going on and you get it right. It is obvious, after reading and editing this thread, you are going to change your understanding of a lot of things if you stick with us, but I will not be so tolerant of dogmatism as Citizensoldier was. We simply don’t have that kind of time to waste. You see, we are no longer looking for the truth in such matters. We already have it so at this point we spend all of our time on working the solutions. We hope you stay with us and remember, Admin is back and we will not tolerate the bunk that was getting slung. This forum will stay on purpose, that much you can count on. :t^:

Hobie
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 8
Joined: Wednesday December 21st, 2005 12:55 am MST

Re: The Strawman

Postby Hobie » Friday January 27th, 2006 5:20 pm MST

Tyler.Durden wrote:
sedonabear wrote:There has to be a link. Has to be.
Did you ever think that this was the point the citizensoldier was trying help you see, but could not tell you outright due to his contractual relationship with Team Law and his capacity as a Team Law beneficiary?
Regards...

Hi, Tyler -
Nice to 'see' you in this conversation. :) Thanks for joining in to raise this point. --hobie

User avatar
Freiheitueberalles
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 12
Joined: Sunday July 10th, 2005 6:30 pm MDT

Re: The Strawman

Postby Freiheitueberalles » Friday January 27th, 2006 8:55 pm MST

Howdy folks,
Let's face it, the United States Government has not exactly been what you would describe as up front and forthright in clarifying these matters of legal confusion. One could even make a case that they have actually contributed to the confusion. But from the laws this beneficiary has researched, it appears they are operating for the most part in accord with the laws.

Other than a flesh and blood man or woman acting in their natural at law status, it is possible, ever since at least the Roman times, to act in a fictional capacity. Of the plethora of legal fictions that are established through the operation of law, of which this beneficiary has studied, each and every one of them fall under one of the following three general categories:
  1. Corporation
  2. Partnership
  3. Trust
This beneficiary has never heard of any person engaged in any legal, political, government, or business activity announce or declare that they are going to go out and set up a STRAWMAN. However, variations of the above three ficticious legal entities are established, used and recognized every day and have been for centuries.
Inserted by Admin :h: As shown by us (above) in this topical thread fictitious business entities of the three categories listed above are anything but fictional. Though they must borrow consciousness from others that possess actual consciousness, they are real live immortal functional beings; which means they are not strawmen. The strawman is like the fourth hand in a three handed bridge game. It has no substance, no consciousness, no functional ability. Therefore, what they are does not apply to the situation at hand with any actual taxpayer. Taxpayer’s require consciousness. The only reason anyone was ever fooled by that ridiculous theory was because they did not understand what is going on. :t^:
Inserted by freiheitueberalles :h: This insertion clarifies Admin's correction. As referenced by Admin (above), the term "ficticious business entities" refers to corporations, partnerships and trusts. According to Black's Law dictionary, a business entity is a business enterprise is a legal entity is a ficticious person is an artificial person. A legal fiction on the other hand is an assumption that something is true even though it may be untrue. Therefore, the correction appears to be to replace the incorrect term "fictional legal entities" with the correct term "ficticious legal entities".
:t^:


Although this beneficiary recognizes the theory, once the so called STRAWMAN is recognized for its true legal fictional nature, a great deal more insight would be gained by simply referring to it and recognizing it for what it truly is. If one were to read what is written on the Social Security Card, it is not difficult to figure out which of the three it is. It's Team Law's ability to assist the United States Government in admitting and recognizing its true legal and lawful nature that made it worth becoming a beneficiary of Team Law to this beneficiary.

Wishing you all a peaceful resolution to all of your conflicts.

Sincerely,
freiheitueberalles
Last edited by Freiheitueberalles on Wednesday March 29th, 2006 10:42 pm MST, edited 1 time in total.

Sedonabear
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 8
Joined: Saturday August 6th, 2005 8:04 pm MDT

Re: The Strawman

Postby Sedonabear » Sunday January 29th, 2006 10:56 am MST

When I went through the misdemeanor traffic episode that I mentioned previously, I noticed that the citing officer, the court clerk, and anyone else who I came into contact with who hand wrote anything, ALWAYS wrote my 'name' in ALL CAPITAL letters, without exception. They wrote everything else in upper and lower case, but my name had to be in all caps, all the time. They are absolutely trained to address everything they do to the strawman (Admin: “There is no such strawman!”), otherwise they have no legal standing to contact you outside of performing their lawful duties: Protect life, liberty, and property.
    Inserted by Admin :h:
    That is not their lawful duty. That is a slogan they print on the car doors and in the media. Their duty is to act as officers of the court and to do what they can to maintain order in accord with law, which means the color of law under their contracts. If that process protects life, liberty or property it is merely a side affect. More often than not the process does the exact opposite and endangers life, liberty and property.

Can congress, in its official capacity, create a human being?
No. Irrelevant.

Did congress have the power to make the People of the States responsible for the debts of the United States?
No.
    Guess again. The Constitution definitely gives Congress the power to contract and to tax the people with apportionment etc. So yes it gave Congress the power to go into debt and to secure the debt from the people.

If congress, through various acts could create a legal fiction called a strawman, could they make it responsible for the debts of the United States?
Yes.
    Guess again. Congress does not have authority to commit fraud. Creating a strawman is one thing but attributing a debt top a fiction is another. It is impossible to lawfully contract for an impossibility. The people cannot do it and therefore they cannot give Congress the power to do it. All of Congress’ authority comes from the people. Therefore, as a matter of law Congress has no such power—did we already point out that they never did either? —Yes! Many times, starting with our Strawman Myth article.

Would it require a human being to create the wealth that Congress could take away from the strawman?
Yes.
    Again, it is impossible so the answer is again, No!

Why did they give legal fictions (persons) the power to contract all by themselves (42 USC Sec. 1981), when it is impossible for a legal fiction to do anything?

When you read 42 USC Sec. 1981, it describes the rights of persons, however, when you look up "corporation" you get the same definition.
    Congress plainly clarified their intent stating they passed the Act
    Congress wrote:…in order to provide adequate protection to victims of discrimination.
    The courts have plainly ruled the legislative intent of Title 42 § 1981 is to secure equal protection of people from racial discrimination. Attempts to use this code for any other purpose have consistently been thrown out of the courts. This is the first time we have ever seen anyone attempt to extrapolate it to any form of legal fiction. The allegation that it so applies is totally bogus having no application in law! If you believe otherwise prove it, not by innuendo but with facts Congress’ recant of what they have already stated on the matter and case law.
If Hale v. Henkel describes how the "state" can treat a corporation/person, and they treat a Citizen according to that standard, then there is the court case right there. Proof that the "person", who is distinct from the "white citizen" was created as a strawman to "achieve some purpose that is not other wise permitted".
    Hale vs. Henkel makes no such claim in any relation to either United States Code 42 § 1981 or to any distinction between “white people” like § 1981 does and corporations. We realize there are man places where such allegations are made spuriously misquoting case law; however, on our forum system we ask participants to make sure their quotes and citations are accurate from the participant’s personal experience. Continually misquoting citations and/or their application can result in being banned from participation on our forums. We certainly hope that does not happen, still we intend for our forums being a reliable source of verifiable information our readers can count on. In fact we hope you will take what you have learned from our responses to your posts on this forum and use them to turn on a light in your mind to begin to learn the truth and throw away all trace of the myths you have presented here. May we all awaken quickly and waste no more time than necessary following after such myths. :t^:

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: The Strawman

Postby Admin » Monday May 29th, 2006 7:14 pm MDT

:h: Everyone:
We are pleased to have been able to help resolve this myth once and for all — we hope.
We have witnessed many people injured by following those that promote this myth and all they market following after it. The people seem more bound to the strawman myth than any of the other myths we presented on our Patriot Mythology page. This seems so unreasonable because the myth is so easily disposed. Still we expect more people have justified more major changes in their lives as a result of falling for the strawman myth than any other. It is supported by the myth that you have to get sovereign (even though you already are). It is the parent myth behind the myth of expatriation. It is also the beginning of the end of the person having any ability to make a living without going into marketing that myth. Thus it tends to feed on itself.

We are pleased our work helps people discover how to use the relationships Corp. U.S. has set up with them while maintaining their ability to remain in their natural sovereign capacity thus controlling both themselves and Corp. U.S. The key is understanding who you are and learning both our history and our law. That is exactly what Team Law does best. Thus we hope you continue with us and learn how to preserve your self, your family and our country by learning and obeying the law.

We hope this information and the corrections we made to this topical thread have been 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.

Psholtz
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 13
Joined: Thursday January 18th, 2007 5:59 pm MST

Re: The Strawman

Postby Psholtz » Monday January 29th, 2007 6:23 pm MST

citizensoldier wrote:I have already posted the outcome of relying on such theory in my previous post; however, State v. Lutz, 2003-Ohio-275 provides the results another practitioner of Redemption theory experienced in Ohio. Ronald E. Lutz was sentenced to 17 years in prison during 2001.

My understanding is that Ronald Lutz was sent to prison for trying to buy Cadillacs using site drafts written against a Treasury Direct Account used by the Department of Transportation. Once the DoT gets current w/ their bookkeeping and discovers that no, they really didn't issue a PO for a Cadillac in Cleveland Ohio on such-and-such a date, they call in the FBI to investigate and the rest is history (so to speak).

The convictions against Lutz also seemed to include charges like extortion and intimidation, and seem to go above and beyond simple "strawman" arguments.

I'm not endorsing the strawman argument, but I don't think the Lutz case is especially indicative of the truth/non-truth, validity/non-validity of strawman/UCC arguments.<hr>My question concerning the so-called "strawman" is as follows:

Even on the Team Law Web site, we see an allusion of sorts to the entity that some on this thread are calling the "strawman". I am getting this from Point #1 (Historical Outlines) of Myth #22 on the Patriot Mythologies section of the Team Law site:
12th: Some time after 1935, you ask Social Security Administration for a relationship with their program. With the express purpose of generating Beneficiary funds to United States General Trust Fund (GTF) the Social Security Administration creates an entity with a name (that sounds like your name but is spelled with all capital letters) and an account number (Social Security number).

Now perhaps this "entity" (w/ its name - or is it an address? - spelled in ALL CAPS) is not a "strawman" in the strictly legal sense of the word, but there does seem to be some level of fraud and deception going on w/ how the government uses and exploits this "trust" created in a name that looks like mine but is spelled in ALL CAPS.

My real question is the following: judging by how the IRS goes about taxing and levying various "taxpayers" throughout the country, is it fair to say that one of the roles this revocable trust (whose name appears in ALL CAPS and which is often mistaken for a strawman) is to create a legal presumption that all SS card holders are in fact employees of the federal government?

If you read the IRC, it seems that the way the IRS goes about assessing and levying taxes is based largely on the rules that apply to federal employees.

To my knowledge I am not an employee of the Federal government..

But perhaps my social security account is?

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: The Strawman

Postby Admin » Tuesday January 30th, 2007 4:19 pm MST

:h: Psholtz:
We appreciate your comments regarding the Lutz case. We have not read it and have no concern over such matters because we believe that when you understand what is wrong with such a theory it makes no sense to focus energy on those that continue to attempt its application. We disclosed the primary error in the so-called “Strawman Theory” many times; that being that all the feds have to do to defeat whatever anyone presents regarding such a thing is say, “no we didn’t” and the entire argument is gone because you cannot prove the existence of that which does not exist.

As for morphing what actually takes place when Social Security Administration creates new relationships in accord with the Social Security Act of 1935 into the alleged Strawman, the theory simply does not fit the facts. Though a strawman can be used to control a trust, as is the case when some escrow accounts are opened and managed at the close of some Real Estate transactions, trusts are not strawmen; and, no perversion of the Strawman Theory can apply to what the Social Security Administration actually does when they create such new Social Security card carrying relationships.

Now, if we look at the thing the Social Security Administration actually creates and compare that to the Strawman alleged in the Theory, we find the people alleging the Theory are attempting to morph what Social Security Administration created into the allegation of a non-existent person (a.k.a.: the Strawman), but following that theology is wrong because the trust so created does exist and trying to say it does not will not change anything and can lead to no good; it can also lead to incredible losses as well. Thus, focusing on such a fiction makes no sense to us.

We do our best to point out the facts surrounding the thing Social Security Administration created and even note exactly what it is, a trust, yet the support necessary to take it to the next step (thus, proving it beyond doubt) require Team Law beneficiary support, which we can only offer Team Law beneficiaries. Thus, we hope you understand the necessity of our being a bit reserved about getting into further details regarding the nature of such relationships and the evidentiary proofs available.

We also note the all caps issue is a non-issue as well. It can easily be written off by any reviewer as a misspelling of the name at best. It proves nothing and though we point out the difference in what you might prefer regarding your name, does not mean that it was not used in an attempt to identify you. The key there is not the name itself but the unique name and number combination. That combination can only identify one person, the taxpayer created by Social Security Administration.

Though much can be said for the bottom line “real question” of your messages, we can also say only very little without stepping into that area of beneficiary only support; and in saying what we can here, we can only point out that again, you are focusing on the man and his alleged relationship as an employee. Certainly, such trusts are Corp. U.S. employees but it does not necessarily follow that the man who ultimately lends his consciousness and physical capacity to such trusts is. However, that does not make your presupposition regarding IRS’ collection effort against taxpayer wrong. In fact, from what we have seen, that part of your statement is exactly correct:
psholtz wrote:If you read the IRC, it seems that the way the IRS goes about assessing and levying taxes is based largely on the rules that apply to federal employees.
However, we would correct the misapplied “my” and replace it with “The” in:
psholtz wrote:I am not an employee of the Federal government. But … my social security account is?
And, it is not the Social Security account numberholder that is the taxpayer? That is, the Trust Social Security Administration created when they offered their card and requested that it be held until such time as they wanted it back. Whether you are a federal employee or not, we cannot say; that is, you are neither a Team Law beneficiary nor do we have sufficient information regarding your actual situation to say, and it is none of our business, whether you are or not. Thus, we cannot answer that question without further information.

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 “Contracts, Trusts & the Corp. Sole”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest