:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

We hold Free Conference Calls every: Monday, Wednesday & Friday morning from:
8:00 – 9:00 AM (Mountain Time); excluding emergencies and national holidays.

Join us on, and invite your friends to, our next Conference Call!

Call: (857) 232-0158; use the Conference Access Code: 110045.

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;
use this link for more: contact information.

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

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

Owning a business...

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

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

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

Owning a business...

Postby Citizensoldier » Sunday August 14th, 2005 11:41 pm MDT

First, I would like to thank Team Law for providing hope to those of us who have felt helpless under the chains (contracts) of Corp. US.

Second, I have a question concerning the issue of owning and operating a business within a state. I am under the impression the statutory power of a state over a privately owned/operated business originates from a "contract" to operate in commerce within that state. If such is the case, what constitutes operating in commerce to create such a contract? I am a bit confused since every living man or woman has the right to contract their labor and to buy/sell the fruits of their labor. Furthermore, it is unlawful for Corp. US to turn a right into a privilege. Can you shed some light on the subject?

Thanks,

CS

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1577
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Owning a business...

Postby Admin » Tuesday August 16th, 2005 6:50 pm MDT

:h: Citizensoldier:

You ask a very interesting set of questions and we expect there are others with similar questions. So we will give the short answer to each question and then delve into the matter a bit.
citizensoldier wrote:I am under the impression the statutory power of a state over a privately owned/operated business originates from a "contract" to operate in commerce within that state. If such is the case, what constitutes operating in commerce to create such a contract?
Today, most business proprietors generally go to the Corp. State and request a Business License. Such a request is a voluntary act. That license constitutes the commercial relationship with the Corp. State. It also defines the business as a public contractor and requires the collection of sales taxes within the Corp. State and applies all of the statutory controls the Corp. State has to otherwise control the business.

Some folks say, “Voluntary act, my foot! They forced us into it and threatened to criminally prosecute if we didn’t get the license.”
That is a reasonable statement if, you don’t know the law.
Along with that statement we should note: Fascism is defined as dictatorial government controlled business.
That style of control operating within our Constitutional Republic is exactly why the Patriot and Tax Protest movements exist. The lack of understanding in those movements is exactly why they so often fail, taking a step or two backwards for every step forward.

That concise factual answer (with its trailing conversational anecdotes) was simple enough and is all some people want—somewhere to go to get quick answers and see how they apply to what’s wrong in our nation. However, Team Law is into solutions; our purpose is to help people educate themselves such that we can win our nation back; that is not done by us simply giving our beneficiaries simplistic answers that might leave them understanding what we said but not understanding how we derived the answer. So let’s review the question again to discover how we derived the answer. Team Law beneficiaries learn how to do the work themselves—that is why we always win our cases.

When we review any relationship we follow the standard for review presented in the Open Forum topic Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole; where we find:
Admin wrote: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.
Therefore we must first identify all parties in the relationship.

  1. Parties:
    1. Party 1. The man or Corp. U.S’. creation?
      1. In Contracts, Trusts & the Corp. Sole we introduced the nature of a man, so we will not address that again here; other than to say, according to foundational law (the Bible) every man is a descendant child of Adam (a.k.a. “Israel”—Prince of God), with all of the rights, privileges and immunities appurtenant to that birthright (for those interested, more on this topic is available from The Way of Kings™).
      2. However, our experience in such matters indicates most people seem to have at least limitedly forgotten that birthright and have chosen to contract early on with the Social Security Administration (hereinafter “SSA”) for a relationship with Corp. U.S. Respectively, SSA produced a Social Security Card, with its respective name and number. The details of that relationship are unraveled in the Beneficiary Private Forum topic Social Security Administration Created Trusts (to access that link you must be an Open Forum registered Team Law Beneficiary). Suffice it to say here that according to SSA the commercial person named and numbered on that card is not the physical man—therefore, in this response hereafter we will refer to that person as “SSC”. SSC is the person that contracts for employment and opens bank accounts using its name and Social Security number—not the man. SSC is usually the person that requests business licenses with the Corp. State.
    2. Party 2. The Corp. State. Who are they? They are a private corporation formed by the actual original jurisdiction Constitutional Republic State officials. For example, in 1968, original jurisdiction Colorado passed its, ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION ACT OF 1968:
      At C.R.S. 24-1-101 Colorado’s Legislature wrote:Legislative declaration
      The general assembly declares that this article is necessary to create a structure of state government which will be responsive to the needs of the people of this state and sufficiently flexible to meet changing conditions; to strengthen the powers of the governor and provide a reasonable span of administrative and budgetary controls within an orderly organizational structure of state government; to strengthen the role of the general assembly in state government; to encourage greater participation of the public in state government; to effect the grouping of state agencies into a limited number of principal departments primarily according to function; and to eliminate overlapping and duplication of effort. It is the intent of the general assembly to provide for an orderly transfer of powers, duties, and functions of the various state agencies to such principal departments with a minimum of disruption of governmental services and functions and with a minimum of expense. To the ends stated in this section, this article shall be liberally construed.
      On review of this we can see Colorado’s original jurisdiction Legislature “declared” it “necessary” to “create” a “structure of state government”. The Law of Necessity supersedes primary law at the cause of some necessity—for example: the Law of Necessity requires premeditatedly killing someone in self defense is not murder. We have to ask, what was wrong with the structure of government created by the State’s Constitution? The answer is nothing. What necessity could possibly supersede the Constitution’s State government construction. Could it possibly be the State Enabling Act’s provision that the State cannot pass any law repugnant to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America? Now notice, they are not changing, amending or adjusting the constitutional construction of the original jurisdiction State government—they are creating something entirely new—and entirely new “structure”. But why? They say they did it to:
      1. be “responsive to the needs of the people of this state”
        • We ask: Which people? Certainly the people’s and their Republic State’s needs were met by the government the people created with their Constitution.
        • Which state? They said, of necessity they were creating a new structure (more on this at paragraph 5. below).
      2. be “sufficiently flexible to meet changing conditions”
        • What “changing conditions”? At the 1962 national Governors’ Conference annually held in Lexington, Kentucky, International Monetary Fund representatives had warned the governors that if the people found out what their State governments had done with the money the people would kill them all and start over. They further warned that if by 1969 the State governments hadn’t done something like what the country’s government did in 1871 (formed Corp. U.S.) the people would find out what was going on. This was certainly a changing condition directly related to what Colorado’s government did in this Act—that is form the corporate State of Colorado (Corp. State).
      3. “strengthen the powers of the governor”
        • How could you possibly “strengthen the powers of the governor” beyond the Constitution’s allowance without changing the Constitution? You could not—further, neither the people nor the Republic had need for such a change.
        • In the United States of America government has no power to govern the people, rather the government is governed by the people and by the law. That is exactly what a Republic is. The only way to strengthen the power of the Governor would be to place the governor’s executive authority over the people—governing them, which (by law) governments in this country are not allowed to do.
      4. “provide a reasonable span of administrative and budgetary controls”
        • What’s wrong with the “budgetary controls” already in place as the constitution set them? Nothing. However, at least by said 1962 conference Colorado’s government found itself completely without money. They, as all of the other States, had been dabbling in foreign notes, bonds and other evidences of debt (the Federal Reserve Note (hereinafter “FRN”) based system), which was forbidden by its own laws, constitution, Enabling Act and the Constitution for the United States of America.
      5. All created “within an orderly organizational structure of state government”
        • The Colorado Constitution already created an orderly Republic State government. It was created in accord with Colorado’s Enabling Act, which required, by an irrevocable ordinance, that the government must be a Republic in form and, as stated above, forbids the passage of any law repugnant to: the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. We notice this new creation is not a new government (remember, they didn’t change the government), rather it is merely “a structure of state government”; meaning it is structured like a state government or it was structured by the State’s government. After this construction (structure, i.e. incorporation), they even call this new thing they created, “state government”. We call it, “Corp. State”. Again remember, they did nothing to change the actual constitutionally formed Republic government—the law forbids that from being done except as defined in Colorado’s Constitution; and no such change was made.
      6. “strengthen the role of the general assembly in state government”
        • How could you possibly “strengthen the role of the general assembly” beyond the Constitution’s allowance without changing the Constitution? You could not—further, the people had no need for such a change.
        • As noted before, this is a Republic and its government has no power to govern the people. Republics are controlled by law; therefore, they do not have the authority to change the law, they merely have the authority to regulate themselves within the confines of the limitations of their constitutions. The only way to strengthen the role of the general assembly would be to give it authority over law and or to allow it to govern or regulate the people—governing them, which (by law) governments in this country are not allowed to do—nor did the people or the Republic have any need for that.
      7. “encourage greater participation of the public in state government”
        • This one is a real puzzler—the only ways the “public” can participate in State government are by:
          1. participating in elections;
          2. using the law (in court) to hold government accountable; or,
          3. coming out of the public to personally serve in office;
          • none of which would fulfill any of the other purposes mentioned. In fact if the public were to exercise their current responsibilities for participation in State government, this very act would be impossible to pass or enforce.
          • Therefore, the term “state government” as used here must be something different than the original jurisdiction Republic State government. It can only mean the new corporate structure they created by this Act and they are now calling their newly created structure “state government” for the purposes of this act, as in trademarking a phrase by its use.
          • The only construction of this phrase remaining is they want to encourage the public to participate (license their relations) through the Corp. State.
        • “effect the grouping of state agencies into a limited number of principal departments primarily according to function”
          • Within the same Act we find:
            At C.R.S. 24-1-109 Colorado’s Legislature wrote:The powers, duties, and functions now vested by law in the office of the governor are continued. Temporary commissions, unless otherwise provided, when established by law or by the governor, shall be units of the office of the governor. Interstate compacts authorized by law shall be administered under the direction of the office of the governor.
            Again note, “The powers, duties, and functions now vested by law in the office of the governor are continued”, which means they did not change either the constitutionally created Governor or his office. The simply placed all functions of the Corp. State as “temporary commissions” as “units of the office of the governor”, which the constitutionally created office could not have; therefore, this new “Office of the Governor” had to be a Corp. State office under which, of necessity, all other functions of the Corp. State function.
          • Within the same Act we find:
            At C.R.S. 24-1-110 Colorado’s Legislature wrote:… all executive and administrative offices, agencies, and instrumentalities of the executive department of the state government and their respective functions, powers, and duties, except as otherwise provided by law, are allocated among and within the following principal departments created by this article
            After which they list all of the “temporary commissions” as “units of the office of the governor”, each listed as a “Department of X” (where “X” is the rest of a Corp. State. Department name like “Department of law” or “Department of revenue”).
        • “eliminate overlapping and duplication of effort”
          • This could be the worst. Though it does not specifically say, could this be the statement used to vacate their original jurisdiction official seats? It certainly fits the process and they have obviously vacated their original jurisdiction seats. Otherwise Governor Madsen could not have, without contest, secured the original jurisdiction Governor’s seat of office.
        • “…this article shall be liberally construed.”
          • Which can only mean that even though a person might not want to believe this, it is true and they will use it to liberally enforce its implications if you choose to contractually bind your business operations with their construction of the corporate State of Colorado.
        Therefore the second party to the relationship is the Corp. State, not the original jurisdiction government; and, in most cases it is not contracting with the people directly; rather, the records show, in most cases, it contracts with the SSC (see 1. Parties paragraph a. 2. above).
    3. Environment. Where there are those that operate their business relations in private refusing to contract with the Corp. State in any way, keeping their relations based upon private contracts; the Constitution for the United States of America forbids the States of the Union from interfering with such contracts; so there is (and can be) no law requiring people to acquire a “Business License”. Such businesses privately function quite well without Corp. State or Corp. U.S. interference. All such businesses we know of are operated from private Land Patent secured Land with no Corp. State contractual relations. Having stated that, let’s go back to our original short answer, because it addresses the environmental nature of the relationship most businesses have:
      Admin wrote:Today, most business proprietors generally go to the Corp. State and request a Business License when they first form the business.
      This license sets the contractual relation between the Corp. State and the business and its proprietors. The records show most of those proprietors were not people; rather, they are Social Security Administration created entities—like the SSC.
      Admin wrote:Such a request is a voluntary act.
      This should be obvious by the fact that there are private businesses that lawfully operate without such licenses.
      Admin wrote:That license constitutes the commercial relationship with the Corp. State. It also defines the business as a public contractor and requires the collection of sales taxes within the Corp. State and applies all of the statutory controls the Corp. State has to otherwise control the business.
      This contractual relationship in commerce sets the stage for the terms of the contract, which terms are the statutory controls.

      Understanding one’s own nature and the nature of the Corp. State’s creation is the first step to understanding the relationship because such an understanding sets the environment. From the review of the Corp. State’s creation we see the original jurisdiction government still exists (though its seats may be vacated) and the Corp. State is carrying out its business needs under the terms of its creation. The Corp. State was created so the original jurisdiction State could avert the difficulties of discovering they were (contrary to law) dabbling with foreign notes, bonds and other evidences of debt through the Federal Reserve System (hereinafter “FRS”); which operates by contract under the bankruptcy of Corp. U.S. and the through the licensed exchange of FRNs in commerce. We are not going to address the bankruptcies here other than by noticing their effect on the necessity the original jurisdiction State had when it formed the Corp. State to alleviate its presenting problem. Was their solution a lawful one? We say it appears to have been. Relations with the Corp. State are voluntary and contractual. Contract law in most cases supersedes law and cannot be interfered with by the actual original jurisdiction government. Therefore you get what you agree to and the relationship fits within the limitations of the Constitutions because they are contractual and voluntarily entered into by all of those that participate in them.
    4. Terms. As referenced above the terms of the agreement are the Corp. State’s statutory controls as they were agreed upon by the application for the Business License.
Continuing with your remaining questions:
citizensoldier wrote:I am a bit confused since every living man or woman has the right to contract their labor and to buy/sell the fruits of their labor. Furthermore, it is unlawful for Corp. US to turn a right into a privilege. Can you shed some light on the subject?
First off, exactly as you suggest people have the right to do, we know a number of people that contract their services privately with no interference from either Corp. U.S. or the Corp. State. As you may already be able to see from the review of the relationship shown above, the contractual relationships people enter into with Corp. U.S. and or with the Corp. State are not mandatory. They turn no rights into privileges. There is no law that requires any man, woman, child or infant to enter into a relationship with the SSA. And, there is also no law that requires a man to contract with either Corp. U.S. or any Corp. State. All agreements with such entities are voluntary. That is not to say that once entered such relationships are not mandatory and controlled by the terms and conditions of the agreement—they are. For example: the relationships that cause a person to have a tax liability are voluntary; however, the obligation to pay tax debts once a person so volunteers are absolutely mandatory whether the taxpayer timely voluntarily assesses such debts or not.

The Bottom Line: it is impossible to obey or honor or sustain the law if you do not know what it is. Therefore it is imperative that we learn the law so we can remain free and save our nation. Do to the ignorance of the people, our Country, our Constitutions, our Law and our way of life is hanging by a thread. At Team Law we help people learn our history and our law so they can apply it and save themselves and so help our nation. We work to spread the truth to everyone out there. We hope from this response you can see what happened more clearly. Learning such foundational history and law opens the door and gives hope to learning how to restore ourselves, our nation and preserve our lives for our posterity. We therefore hope for your support and that you will spread the word about Team Law. Get involved! Invite your friends to join our Open Forum and support Team Law.

We hope this information is helpful to you. :t^:
Last edited by Admin on Thursday December 14th, 2006 3:55 pm MST, edited 2 times in total.
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
Zeal
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 27
Joined: Friday June 17th, 2005 4:30 pm MDT

RE: Owning a business...

Postby Zeal » Wednesday August 17th, 2005 8:58 pm MDT

Hello Team Law,

Thanks for this in-depth analysis. It is much appreciated. My guess is that I would benefit tremendously by taking this analysis and reading the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871.

Steve

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1577
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

RE: Owning a business...

Postby Admin » Thursday August 18th, 2005 1:44 pm MDT

:h: Steve:

You are absolutely correct! As we stated before, the only way to correctly understand any relationship is by the standard for review presented in Open Forum topic Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole. Therefore, reviewing the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 in the same manner as we reviewed the Corp. State of Colorado’s creation in the preceding review would yield better understanding. In that document you will find a similar problem when Congress states that they are creating a municipal corporation. In reviewing that Act remember, it was passed under the environment of:
  1. The Municipality known as, the District of Columbia was incorporated under the District of Columbia Organization Act of 1801, which corporate creation was repeatedly confirmed in United States Supreme Court rulings;
  2. That original incorporation remained unchanged and un-amended when Corp. U.S. was formed 70 years later;
  3. The Constitution of the United States of America had 16 articles of amendment;
  4. Congress had constitutional authority, “to pass (and enforce) any law within the ten mile square” of Washington, District of Columbia;
  5. President Lincoln’s martial law authority from the Civil War was still in effect.
Again, the standard for review requires one must first know who the parties of the relationship are, only then will the environment of the relationship be understandable and only when the environment is understood will the terms of the relationship have any real meaning.

________________________________________
Also, we received the following private message and removed all identifying content to preserve its private nature:
A private messenger wrote:It appears like there are some formatting issues particularly in #1b and #8 and beyond. The quote boxes are cut off.

We appreciate proofreading help. We do our best and read our posts several times before leaving them posted; however, we do miss things. Therefore, we always appreciate all the help we can get keeping such errors to a minimum. Thank you!

The quote in the deep indent is actually formatted correctly. The problem is in the PHP software. We were aware of the problem when we posted the message but felt it was better to leave the quotes in than to simply reference them otherwise.

There is a work around:
If you simply drag the mouse pointer over the quote and press the mouse’s select button three times it will select all of the text in the quote box. Then copy the text and paste it into any text processing software, the whole quote will appear. We realize this is a little less convenient than simply reading the quote, but for most it is easier than digging up the code.

The private messenger further wrote:Lastly, thank you for this post. This brings it all together for me…. I appreciate you taking the time to write it. If this is the type of material I can expect as a beneficiary, I need to work harder at getting the wife educated. I have a friend who is willing to donate the money and nominate me, but I really want my wife to be involved if possible. [kiss]

Thanks again,
Our response is patterned after the type and depth of our normal Team Law Beneficiary support.

We hope this information is also helpful to you. :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: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests