Assigning SS Number to a baby

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

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Forum rules
Forum Rules with purpose, sitewide copyright & advice statements.

Assigning SS Number to a baby

Postby Aerochu » Monday December 4th, 2006 7:45 pm GMT

Given that it is now law in some locations to assign a social security number to a baby at birth,
_____________________________________________
Inserted by Admin :h:
This insert is made here because we did not have the opportunity to respond to this message until after there was a significant topical thread already developed. Thus it is simpler for us to simply insert critical editorial comments right in the message we would have responded to. Thus the following is our response to the previous sentence in this post:

We doubt that allegation. We have never seen such a law and contest that no such law exists. We also contest any allegation that congress has the authority to pass such a law in violation of God’s law. Thus we challenge this allegation and request that you provide the alleged law. If you cannot produce the same we would challenge you to be better prepared the next time you post a topic on our Open Forum.
_____________________________________________

does this mean that one is being forced to establish the trustee/beneficiary agreement? Or is this simply a trick to make people think that they have to? Can the parents refuse this relationship? Moreover, would they want to? Would it be better to not be in the system, or would a sovereign human actually benefit from the relationship, assuming that he/she understood that relationship and how to work within the system? Is this relationship actually detrimental, or is the key simply knowing and understanding the relationship?

MC
_____________________________________________
Inserted by Admin:
Finally we note that the details you are asking for here are of a nature that would require a level of support we can only provide to our Team Law beneficiaries; wherefore, we cannot address such details here in this Open Forum. We do note that if in fact our expectation noted above is correct there is no such law in existence and thus the questions you asked subsequent to that allegation are irrelevant. As a blanket statement regarding all such claims made by administrators of hospitals, doctors, etc. we would not comply with their requests because such a request would compel us to violate God’s laws, which we cannot do regardless of their allegation of such a law.

When you ask if such a relationship is detrimental we respond with a question for you:
Would it be detrimental to accept the Mark of the Beast referenced in John’s Revelation in the Bible? According to that revelation, such an acceptance would be sufficient to remove ones name from the Lamb’s Book of Life. We would say that would be detrimental. Are we saying that the Social Security number is the mark of the beast? No. it is not but it is definitely related to the Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-12, which sets an identification standard for Federal Employees and Contractors. On reviewing the implementation standards, that have already been put in place with their references to optional RFID implant chips in the hand, arm or forehead, we can certainly see cause for concern. Add that to the national ID card statute that has also already been passed and is scheduled for implementation in accord with the same standard, we definitely see more than a passing relationship with the prophecy. We simply would not do it. Understanding how to use the system, when you are already in it and using it to secure our restoring our original jurisdiction government in its proper place in control of Corp. U.S., makes perfect sense. We would do that, but putting a child in such harms way makes no sense at all except for the ignorant.
:t^:
_____________________________________________
Aerochu
Registered User
Registered User
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Saturday December 2nd, 2006 1:19 am GMT
Location: Virginia

Postby Gabo » Wednesday December 6th, 2006 1:51 am GMT

People do not "have" Social Security Numbers, they only act in the Trustee capacity of Social Security Administration created Trusts.
Each such Trust belongs to Corp US (which is why people get charged when they burn a card).
Gabo
Registered User
Registered User
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Friday September 16th, 2005 7:27 pm GMT
Location: California Republic

Postby Balboa » Friday December 8th, 2006 12:55 am GMT

In the United States of America nobody can be compelled into a contract. Any alleged contract would not be binding.
The parents can indeed refuse to allow the relationship with SSA to be created in the first place. When the child is old enough to understand contracts, he or she may want to establish such a relationship, making sure to document the exact nature of the parties and the relationship so that no general partnership can be presumed to exist between the human and the entity created (usually by the Social Security Administration) in the establishment of the relationship. Team Law can help in the process.

You have touched on two of the elemental questions that need to be answered for all of this to make sense, that is:
  1. who are you, and
  2. what, if any, relationship exists between you and
    1. any other “person” and/or
    2. any other law form?
This is broken down in the lead article in this forum like this:
Team Law's: Standard for Review

Rule 1:
To understand any relationship you must:
  1. First understand who the parties are;
    1. Always know yourself first
    2. Discover the true nature of all other parties second
  2. Then you must understand the environmental nature of the relationship; and,
  3. Only then do the actual terms of the relationship begin to have meaning and bearing on the relationship.
Rule 2: To have any hope of understanding any particular situation in any relationship you must have first applied Rule 1, only then do the details of the situation in question have any meaning; therefore, review such details in accord with Rule 1 as well.

By the time you read this you may have gleaned from your other readings that God's children cannot be assigned any number at all. But trusts are frequently assigned numbers, just like the trusts created by the SSA. There are numerous ways parents can establish contractual relationships for their children’s benefit, which can later be changed by the parties related if they all agree to the changes.

Your question, “would a sovereign human actually benefit from the relationship, assuming that he/she understood that relationship and how to work within the system?”

Indirectly yes, because people can loan their consciousness and physical abilities to some other capacity in a contract. We encourage you to contact Team Law by phone or become a Beneficiary for a more detailed explanation of the relationship.
_____________________________________________
Inserted by Admin :h:
We expect contacting Team Law to learn more is a wise move.
Beyond that, we would not make this assumption. Though it is possible to use the system as it is and for those already in the system we would say that is possible, we would certainly not recommend it for any children that are not already in the system. In fact for those that such Social Security Administration created Trusts have already been created, if there had been no funding made from Corp. U.S. to such trusts we would apply for a removal of the request. We recognize Corp. U.S. as “Mammon” also described in scripture and we would only use it to compel our original jurisdiction government back into place. :t^:
_____________________________________________

“Is this relationship actually detrimental, or is the key simply knowing and understanding the relationship?”
The relationship could be detrimental if one fails to understand the nature of the parties involved, or fails to obey the law. Knowing and understanding the relationship, as you say, and your own true identity, is paramount.
You may want to review the topic “SSA Card” under Miscellaneous Topics in the Team Law Forum.
All of your questions are excellent questions, and they can be answered more comprehensively at the Beneficiaries Forum. Hope to see you there.
Balboa
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wednesday December 6th, 2006 1:58 pm GMT
Location: Idaho

Postby Aerochu » Friday December 8th, 2006 6:31 am GMT

Thanks, Balboa, that's all good stuff. I realize this question may broach info reserved for beneficiaries, but are you telling me that one can actually contract with SSA without establishing the trust? What does this entail/accomplish? Would one still be paying the SS taxes, and be able to collect benefits? Please forgive all my questions, but I've never heard of doing this. Thanks, MC
_____________________________________________
Inserted by Admin :h:
To answer all of the questions you asked fully would enter us into an area of support reserved to Team Law beneficiaries; however, answering your two question does not. The nature of your first question is one that presupposes you establish the trust with Social Security Administration (hereinafter “SSA”). However, that is not a correct presupposition. SSA is the creator of the trusts they create by sending applicants property that belongs to Corp. U.S. (the Social Security card). SSA then specifically reserves that the card remains Corp. U.S.’ property and asks the card recipient to hold the card until such time as Corp. U.S wants it back; which presupposes that the nature of the trust they so created is a revocable trust. That process is the very definition of creating an implied trust. The fact that Corp. U.S. also reserves the right to maintain control over the trust’s distributions to the beneficiary (Corp. U.S.) means that in law the trust is an agency of Corp. U.S. (a.k.a.: an agency trust). Thus, as a matter of law, a new trust is created each time Social Security Administration does that. We are aware of no way to establish a relationship with Social Security Administration without lending your consciousness and physical capacity to such a trust. That should answer you first question. With that answer your second question becomes moot. As to taxes and Social Security benefits, those issues have almost no relation to this topic and the answers to those questions definitely would take us into an area reserved to Team Law beneficiary support. We can say this, we have no idea how anyone can owe a tax if the tax code is incomprehensible and the forms offered by IRS do not comply with the Paperwork reduction acts; but that is another subject entirely and it is one reserved to Team Law beneficiary support.
We hope this information is helpful to you. :t^:
_____________________________________________
Aerochu
Registered User
Registered User
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Saturday December 2nd, 2006 1:19 am GMT
Location: Virginia

Postby Balboa » Friday December 8th, 2006 11:59 am GMT

MC,
First, more than likely, you are already involved with SSA, and there probably already is a Trust created by SSA with which you have a relationship. The question is, “what is the nature of that relationship?” Was there a contract? If so, what are the terms and conditions of the contract? If not, what are the presumptions in place that define the relationship? More than likely, there is a general partnership relationship that holds you and the Trust both responsible, and thus liable, for all the actions of the Trust.
_____________________________________________
Inserted by Admin :h:
We do not necessarily agree. Though there may be a general partnership relationship evidenced by your ignorance if you think the Social Security number Social Security Administration created when they created the trust is actually your number; but the more likely situation is that when you lend your consciousness and physical capacity to the Trust’s Trustee capacity, it is the one that says that number is its number and that person is not you. We ask people the question, “When a Trustee acts, who is acting?” The correct answer is, “The Trust.” The wrong answer is, “The Trustee.” The reason that is the wrong answer is, the Trustee capacity was created only for the purpose of acting for the Trust, it has no capacity to act in its own capacity. Thus, when the Trustee acts it is only the Trust acting. Thus, if a trust applies for a driver’s license, what does the picture on the license look like? The answer: “It looks like the person that lends the trust’s trustee capacity consciousness and physical capacity.” Why? Because the physical capacity of the Trust in such a situation is the tangible body of the one so lending. Therefore, whose action are the actions of the driver of the car being driven under such a license? “They are the actions of the Trust and of no other person. If you (ignorantly)imply those actions were your own personal actions, you may be implying a general partnership between you and such a trust. Such a situation is what we believe Balboa is referring to here. We would not accept such actions of such trusts as if they were our own, rather we would secure the difference between such a trust and our natural personal capacities and we would then always personally stand separate from any such action allowing such a trust to carry out its needs without tainting our own actions in our natural capacity. For example we would never let such a trust kiss our spouse.
_____________________________________________

(Does the Trust have a driver’s license? Most likely it does. Has the Trust ever violated statutory regulations (like speeding) that It agreed to follow when It applied for the license? Probably, and the person who loaned consciousness and physical ability to the Trust for it to act became liable for those violations along with the Trust because of the nature of general partnerships).
_____________________________________________
Inserted by Admin :h:
Again we do not agree. This is clearly a situation where the Trust is acting of its own volition and it is certainly licensed to act in just that manner. To say more would be trespassing on Team Law beneficiary support so we will leave it at that but this is exactly an example of why we interjected our last point. On the other hand if you want to stand personally accountable for such a tlicensed trust you have that prerogative, we just think that would be silly. If you so choose to be silly then Balboa would be correct—so standing personally accountable would certainly prove the likelihood of a general partnership between the trust and the one lending it consciousness and physical capacity.
_____________________________________________

Any place the Trust used its identifying number (Social Security number) to apply for licenses, registrations, jobs, etc., it was the Trust doing it in general partnership with you, holding you responsible for all of its actions.
_____________________________________________
Inserted by Admin:
Again we do not agree for the same reasons shown above. :t^:
_____________________________________________

Second, I don’t know why anyone would want to contract with SSA without the Trust relationship in place, especially if one has the ability to generate a definitive record of the relationship that can stand in law. Beneficiaries of Team Law have that ability.
You may want to study the lead article (Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole) again in this Forum, and pay particular attention to the idea of capacity. Understanding the legal meaning of capacity (especially as it relates to trustees) is the key to controlling entities like trusts, without becoming a general partner with the trust, allowing you to act separately from the trust in your natural man or women status if you so desire.
The article states, “…because the capacity Trustee was created so that the Trust can function, when the Trustee acts [in accord with its Indenture (contract)] it is the Trust that is acting and not the person lending consciousness and physical capacity to it.”
The trust and you are not the same person, although you may control it by loaning consciousness and physical capacity to it.
Hope this was helpful. Keep up the study.
Balboa
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wednesday December 6th, 2006 1:58 pm GMT
Location: Idaho

Postby Aerochu » Friday December 8th, 2006 9:37 pm GMT

Ah, I think I'm starting to figure out what's going on here. Things start to clear up once I start looking up some of these definitions and read between the lines a little. I had read that article once or twice before posting my questions, but I still wasn't getting it. I hope this is correct, because I'm starting to feel enlightened: I have contracted with the SSA somehow. My parents did it initially, but by not rejecting the contract upon coming of age, I tacitly accepted it. Also, for some reason, the contract that I have entered into established a general partnership between myself (the consciousness lending itself to the trustee?) and the trust.
_____________________________________________
Inserted by Admin :h:
We do not agree. Such a general partnership is not an automatic thing. The only way such a general partnership can be created is for you to accept personal responsibility for the actions of the trust as if those actions were your own. In all likelihood you have not knowing ly done that. In fact in all likelihood you loaned your consciousness and physical capacity (both your ability to make decisions and your physical ability to carry out such decisions) to the trust and therefore its actions were its own; performed by it alone, while it was in possession of your consciousness and physical capacity. Understanding the distinction is what keeps you from making the error of acting as if such actions were your own.
_____________________________________________

(Perhaps I need to read the Social Security Act in order to find out why that is[?]) However, if I were a beneficiary, Team Law could help me create a trust indenture which will establish the corporation sole relationship instead of the general partnership.
_____________________________________________
Inserted by Admin:
Oh, Team Law can help you educate yourself such that you can create any kind of document you may need for almost any lawful need, but we do not do your work for you; and your question presupposes that the corporation sole does not already exist in the Trust that Social Security Administration created; which indicates that you need to go back and read the Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole article again. A corporation sole is created anytime a consciousness is created in contract, which is the case anytime a trust is created. The trustee capacity is merely a contractually created consciousness for the Trust so it is by definition a corporation sole—no exceptions. Even if you were to form a general partnership with a trust, the corporation sole capacity of the Topical thread capacity would still remain. Beyond that support on this matter is limited to Team Law beneficiary support.
_____________________________________________

This is pretty remarkable stuff.

I suppose the only question left is: if I have contracted into this relationship, and it benefits SSA and Corp. U.S. so much (at least it seems to) why would they agree to change the terms of the contract? Or is it that I have the right to a written contract, since none now exists (or does it?)?
_____________________________________________
Inserted by Admin :h:
There is nothing for Social Security Administration to change in the relationship. The relationship is what it is and its understanding is what empowers you if you gain that understanding. The terms of the relations ship exactly as they are is what we help you learn how to secure and your understanding of the relationship is what empowers you to use the relationship to your advantage rather than to have it be used merely to control you in your ignorance. Of course, again, the key to that complete understanding may rest in the area of Team Law beneficiary support and the reason such matters are so reserved is because the information is such that when people receive it without support they most often use it incorrectly do to their ignorance. With Team Law’s support, you have the opportunity to amplify your education with our internal document review process; which has the ability of helping you make sure that your actions are always right, but you are the one that educates yourself and you are the one that does whatever you do. We simply help you learn how to easily learn the law and learn how to apply it. :t^:
_____________________________________________

I have to tell you, Balboa, you have been extremely helpful in helping me to understand this information. Much appreciation.
Aerochu
Registered User
Registered User
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Saturday December 2nd, 2006 1:19 am GMT
Location: Virginia

Postby Balboa » Friday December 8th, 2006 11:30 pm GMT

In the United States of America one certainly has the right to a written contract in any agreement, especially when a constructive (construed or implied) trust seems apparent, as is the case with SSA. One also has the right to request a copy of a contract from another party if one suspects an agreement to already be in place by the way another party operates. If the other party fails to provide a written contract there is nothing to keep one from creating a contract of one’s own, providing an opportunity for the other party to review it, agree to it’s correctness or not, and request the other party to respond. Following the rules of commercial and statutory process one may find they have a response from the other party, whether or not the other party replies.
I am not sure how much more information I am at liberty to share on this forum, but I can commend you on the analysis of your recent studies and well thought out questions. Keep up the good work!
Balboa
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wednesday December 6th, 2006 1:58 pm GMT
Location: Idaho

Postby Admin » Sunday December 17th, 2006 9:17 am GMT

:h: Aerochu & Balboa:
You had an interesting topical thread here staying mostly on track, but as we pointed out in our inserted comments throughout the topical thread it seems like there was a critical misunderstanding regarding the nature of both what a corporation sole is and how a general partnership is established. Balboa’s comments indicated a general partnership exists just because the relationship exists between the trust and the party lending consciousness and physical capacity to it. This is not the case. In fact the very reason corporate immunity exists is to protect those that offer their consciousness and physical capacity to official positions for other entities. All such entities are contractually created. Those contracts require officers must make decisions. Such decisions require consciousness. Thus, any time you create a consciousness in contract you create a corporation sole—which is a non juristic person separate from both the entity that created it and form the one that lends it actual consciousness. The corporation sole is thus, a contractually created entity possessing only the capacity to act as and for the entity in which it was created; thus, when the Trustee acts it is actually the trust that is acting and it is not the one that loaned the trustee capacity its consciousness and physical capacity.

This is the very reason no general partnership is created by such actions—how could it be? Once the man loaned his physical capacity to the trust that capacity belonged to the trust and its actions within the terms of its contract were its own. Having reviewed thousands of these trusts relations our experience is that only in rare situations were general partnerships developed between such trusts and those that loaned them consciousness and physical capacity. In each case where such general partnerships were created it seems their creation was the result of ignorance on the part of the parties involved. Thus, it is important to understand the relationship to avoid the pitfall of ignorantly assuming general partnership style of accountability in a relationship where no such relationship exists.

Balboa’s final comment on the topical thread noted the right any person involved in a contractual relationship has to having a printed copy of the relationship. Certainly such a right is universal for any contract anywhere except for one thing; contracts are constantly created on the fly in daily life, almost never with written contracts. Thus, if a person were to limit themselves to contracts with others only when the relationship is written they would live a very sheltered life almost void of contact with others.

The Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole article describes the elements of a contract. Virtually every relationship has some if not all of those elements and either borders on a contractual relationship or qualifies as one. When an implied contract is create (all of the elements of a contract exist but there is no written instrument) the parties can sometimes require a written instrument to confirm the terms of the relationship, but that is often self defeating especially considering time of the offer. If one holds out for a written agreement, the opportunity can exhaust itself and the privilege will be lost. Certainly that is not the case with the offer from Corp. U.S. through the Social Security Administration. But still, the nature of that contractual relationship is without a written agreement between the parties and if you ask them for a copy of the written agreement there answer will be there is none and this is not a contractual relationship. Of course what they are referring to is the right to Social Security benefits from the relationship and to that end they are correct. That is not a contractual relationship. We can know that with certainty because of the court cases where various parties have sued for “their benefits” and the courts have so ruled. But those rulings have nothing to do with the offer presented by Social Security Administration in holding the card that belongs to Corp. U.S. That relationship is definitely one that fits all of the conditions that define an implied contract in the nature of an implied trust. Yet, if you demand a copy of the written contract, again, none exists. Thus, you have no right to that which does not exist—sp again we have to disagree with what Balboa stated in that regard. To delve into what one can do in that regard would take us into an area of Team Law beneficiary support so we cannot go there in this forum, but we can and have answered with such details in our Beneficiary Forum.

Balboa implied that you can always create a written contract regarding an implied contract in any relationship and we would disagree with that allegation as well. Certainly you could do it but your doing so might cause effects you did not desire, which could end the relationship; and, just because you craft such a written document in an implied contractual situation does not mean that the instrument you craft will become the contract the parties operate under even if the other party does not overtly contest it. There are other issues that must be considered. The nature of an implied contractual situation are self defining and you cannot necessarily change those conditions just because you, after the fact want a written agreement. The only way such a written agreement can be attached to an implied contractual relationship is if all of the parties agree to it. So, on those points we also disagree with Balboa’s last comment. Though, we cannot go into greater detail on such matters here we admonish Balboa to call us so that we can make sure Balboa understands such matters more fully and we hope our clarification here of the nature of the trustee capacity as a corporation sole has been helpful.

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
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1457
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm GMT
Location: Colorado

Postby Aerochu » Friday December 22nd, 2006 3:34 pm GMT

Admin wrote:We doubt that allegation. We have never seen such a law and contest that no such law exists.
I have not seen such a law, either, and I wouldn't dispute that such a law does not exist. However, my question was predicated on a claim made in the "Family Ties" article in the WARN newsletter. If this turns out to not be true, then my entire question may be moot. Then again, it seems that the entire corporate system has been set-up to ensure that people accept a role in the trust by making it as difficult as possible to function within the system without a social security number, and to attempt to eliminate all that which is not within the system. I also asked in reference to your admonition to be "in the system, but not of the system", or something to such effect. But by your response, I take it that that refers to people who are already within the system, and that there is no good reason for anyone to actually enter into the system of his own volition.

I also posed the question in regard to anecdotal evidence given by a friend of mine. Four years ago, she convinced a girl not to have an abortion. The way that my friend convinced this girl was by telling her that she would adopt the baby. After I discovered Team Law, I inquired as to whether she set the child up with an SS#. She told me that she didn't have to, and that it was done by the hospital staff automatically. Of course, that's not to say that she didn't sign something that she didn't read and which stated that that action would be taken.

If my interpretation of the statement in the WARN newsletter is incorrect, I would appreciate a clarification.
Aerochu
Registered User
Registered User
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Saturday December 2nd, 2006 1:19 am GMT
Location: Virginia

Postby Admin » Saturday December 23rd, 2006 9:17 am GMT

:h: Aerochu:
Thanks for the clarification. You can rest assured that no such law exists. We can safely say that because such a law is already forbidden in law. If anyone were to generate such a statute, the statute would be unlawful and could not be compelled. Thus, we expect your question was moot; however, we expect the intent of your question was right on point (now that we believe we understand that intent).

There are policies, procedures and even statutory implications that such things can be requested, but no one can be compelled into the Social Security system at this time. Some hospitals and some doctors have policies to generate applications for relationships with Social Security Administration for their patients, but you cannot be forced to participate in those applications. If such an application is generated and the resulting relationship is not positively or negatively funded by use of the relationship, you can file a request for its removal and the Social Security Administration will remove it. If the trust is used and the Social Security Administration’s records show a positive or negative balance on their records, then generally they will not cancel such an application.

The law still states that the Social Security number cannot be used as identification nor can its lack of presentation be used to limit any person from any right, privilege or immunity they would otherwise have. Though there are now states with statutory restrictions requiring the to the use of a Social Security number on application for certain licenses, the lack of existence of a Social Security number related to the person still cannot be used to lawfully limit the person from any right, privilege or immunity they would otherwise have.

Of course there are other ways to function and if a person is ignorant of their rights then they do not have them. The man that lends consciousness and physical capacity to Team Law’s Trustee capacity has no licenses. To secure the right to drive he went to the state (prior to driving) and lawfully compelled them to show cause wherein they had any authority to limit or control his rights to take his property and come and go as he pleases without interference from government. The Corp. State’s own law required them to respond but they could not show such a cause and they had to recognize that he was not one required to have a license. The same kind of thing goes for virtually every possible ability or right we have. Today, we often need to preserve such rights as a matter of right before we begin to exercise such rights, if for no other reason, to eliminate the hassle of the presumption that today everyone must have a license to do whatever.

This is a direct effect of the situation described in our website’s Patriot Mythology page, specifically at Myth 22.

The nature of our existence requires us to be in and function ‘in the world’ (system), but the operational and spiritual necessity of remaining ‘not of the world’ (system) requires that we must know our rights and the law, so that we can preserve both our rights and our law. There are many ways to preserve such things in law, if we know what our rights are and if we know what the laws are. If we remain ignorant, we can preserve nothing and become subject to our surroundings. That is where Team Law comes in; we help people educate themselves so that they can preserve their rights and our law.

There are many ways to deal with hospitals and childbirths. If one finds they are in a situation where a party like a hospital wants to generate such forms they will find them brought to almost a screeching halt if they simply do not name the child until after all of the hospital dealings are completed and they have gone home. Then they fail to give that information to the hospital—ever—amen, to the hospital’s ability to generate such an application. Also, having a third party or otherwise indirect mailing location for contact with the party dealing with a hospital makes their follow up in attempting to assign such things difficult or impossible. There are many more ways to eliminate such third party applications. The educational details of such ways and means are reserved to Team Law beneficiary support.

With the advent of Homeland Security, finding ways to function without Corp. U.S. or Corp. State issued Identification is getting more difficult. But, it can still be done if that is what you want to do. And you are right we address the methods for using that system to those that are in that system because their involvement in it is our only control of that system. Still, we would never do anything but admonish those that are not yet in that system to stay out of it and learn how to interact with it without entering into its control. There are significant ways to do both while maintaining autonomous liberty for your own natural capacity.

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
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1457
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm GMT
Location: Colorado

Re: Assigning SS Number to a baby

Postby Divinebob » Friday April 9th, 2010 12:29 pm GMT

Very informative topic. Did I understand correctly that if children have been issued a ssn but never received any form of compensation or benefits connected to the number then they can reject the trust agreement and stay out of the system? :ro A Ray of hope bursts forth!

Divinebob
"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he breaks, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt." - John P. Curran, 1790
Divinebob
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Friday March 26th, 2010 2:31 pm GMT
Location: Idaho

Re: Assigning SS Number to a baby

Postby Admin » Friday April 9th, 2010 4:18 pm GMT

:h: Divinebob:
Due to surprise or astonishment, your inquiry seems a bit rhetorical; considering the fact that our post was clearly enough presented. Thus, we expect you asked your last question to try to get us to flesh out the topic a bit further; however, delving into this matter any further than the information we already provided would require Team Law beneficiary support.

Earlier today we provided you with our response to your inquiry on the subject: Filing a "statement" with IRS. In that response we pointed out the fact that we are Charter bound to provide Team Law Beneficiary level of support only to our beneficiaries. That response is equally applicable here.

Thus, we refer you to that response and note: the proper way to verify new information is to simply go to the law related to the matter and look it up. If you need help with the process of learning how to so learn the law firsthand then Team Law can help with that too; however, that level of service requires Team Law beneficiary support.

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

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


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1457
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm GMT
Location: Colorado


Return to Contracts, Trusts & the Corp. Sole

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron