I'm new to the forum, but I've been ravenously digesting what I could find on your website and this forum. Unfortunately, this process has led to more unanswered questions. I would be most grateful if you could reply to them. They are in blue
below. I also have some well-intentioned comments for your consideration. Please consider them as from a brother in the Lord Jesus Christ.[hr][/hr] Inserted by Admin: OK! And, due both to the length of your post and the fact that others have already responded to your post, we will edit your post live, in red as we review it; also, our responses will be led and followed by a horizontal line.
[hr][/hr]In regard to Admin's statement:
Admin wrote:You implied that Corp. U.S. has no ears to hear. That is not true. They are compelled by the terms of their contracts, just as you are. But, you will never compel them to do anything until you first learn how those contractual relationships work. You cannot treat them as if you were the sovereign in them. However, you could learn the law and discover that it does work. That has certainly been our experience from the beginning.
Actually, I have found that the IRS, the Tax Division of the DOJ, and the Courts strive mightily to evade Corp. U.S.' contractual obligations. The law sets forth the essential terms of the contract between the SSA-created trust and Corp.U.S. . Section 93 of the Revenue Act of 1862 (now restated with no substantive change in meaning in Section 3173 of the Revenue Act of 1873 (Revised Statutes), as amended in 1919), and reiterated in 26 U.S.C. §6201(a)(1) and 26 CFR §301.6203-1, imposes upon the Commissioner of Internal Revenue the obligation to assess duties on any party's sworn declarations of annual income liable to be assessed. Section 93 reads in part:
“And be it further enacted,... that any party, in his or her own behalf,... shall be permitted to declare, under oath or affirmation, the form and manner of which shall be prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue,... ...the amount of his or her annual income,... liable to be assessed,... and the same so declared shall be received as the sum upon which duties are to be assessed and collected.”[hr][/hr]Of course, you must realize that Act is not relevant to the IRS of today (or to its Commissioner, which is not the same as the one in the Act you referenced); which (IRS), did not exist in 1862. Further, that Act was passed before Corp. U.S. was created (1871) — so, it is only relevant to the original jurisdiction government’s respective Commissioner, which office no longer exists; and, that 1862 Act was passed long before the existence of the Social Security Administration (1935) and before any people had loaned consciousness and physical capacity to any taxpayers created by the Social Security Administration. Thus, referring to such an Act with any relevance today is off-point from any relevant taxation issue today—the original jurisdiction government has not collected any taxes from the people since at least 1917.
[hr][/hr]In my own affairs, after declaring the amount income earned by SSA's trust in accordance with the definitions of "income" set forth in Title 26, [hr][/hr]We were not aware of any definitions of the word “income” in the United States Code at Title 26. That title uses the word quite frequently but only in application to other defined terms that do not even allow the word to be understood in its common usage. In other words, to even understand such usage you would first have to find an “applicable tax”; the likes of which we have never found anyone that could show one from that Title. In fact, we expect the only way one could find such a definition would be to apply it to a sentence like the one you just used; where you stated, “after declaring the amount income earned”. Then their usage (though not defined by them) would take on meaning due to your “declaration”.
[hr][/hr]in the form and manner prescribed by the Commissioner, the Commissioner refused to receive that amount as the sum upon which duties are to be assessed and collected. I have pled that the Commissioner has breached this term of its contract, and have presented evidence proving that he did so, and have been damaged by that breach, and have proven my damages with evidence, and thus far the Courts (being the U.S. Tax Court and a Per Curiam opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. District) have not held the Commissioner liable to the SSA created trust to which I lend my consciousness and capacity. So based on my personal experience to date, Corp. U.S. does indeed breach its contracts, and uses its Courts to cover for its acts of insurrection. [hr][/hr]We cannot comment on your experience in court because we are not familiar with the case and you are not a Team Law beneficiary. However, we expect the matter that was presented and contested was not presented with convincing evidence of the facts that you here allege. Such is the case with most such cases, where the taxpayer presents a case and looses. Then they go off disgruntled because they fought their case in ignorance and did not know how to proceed. Again, such is the value of having Team Law as an aid to self-education. It can help you understand how to fight and win and how to understand the value of what may appear to be a loss. It is obvious from your report that you did not have such assistance and it is also obvious that loosing such a case does not even in the slightest sense involve or prove “insurrection”. Though we do not know your case and cannot review it here (except in our Beneficiary Forum), we venture to say the actual nature of the relationship between you and the Social Security Administration created trust was not elemental or proven in that case. If we are accurate in that venture, then the rest of what you have here presented regarding it is certainly inaccurate.
[hr][/hr]Which gives rise to question 1. "If Corp. U.S. breaches the terms of its agreement with the Trustee of SSA's trust, is that grounds for rescission of my agreement to act as Trustee on behalf of SSA?"
[hr][/hr]No, it is not.
No grounds exist, under which one party of a lawful contract can rescind their agreement from the contract without the agreement of the other parties so agreed outside of the terms and conditions of the agreement. The agreement between the SSA and those that accept the responsibility to hold Social Security cards is a lawful agreement made with full disclosure on the part of the SSA. Thus, there are no terms for rescission from that agreement without the consent of the Social Security Administration. If they breach the terms of the agreement you can sue them and properly hold them accountable to the terms of the agreement; but that is not cause to rescind. Your agreement so to hold the card is not even in question in that alleged cause. Again, to delve further into that matter we would have to be on the Beneficiary Forum; so we will leave it at that here.
[hr][/hr]Now to the SSA created trust... Your work on this evinces exemplary scholarship. I was suspecting this was the nature of the arrangement because of the manner in which Courts routinely dismiss all constitutionally based arguments as "frivolous and without merit".[hr][/hr]We expect your comment here confirms the statement we ventured above regarding your court argument.
[hr][/hr]When a Court does so, either it is acting with abject lawlessness, or it is ruling rightfully but concealing the rationale for its ruling. [hr][/hr]Courts are not obligated to reveal the rationale for their rulings and most often they do not.
[hr][/hr]Now I believe that the one who restrains lawlessness has not yet been taken out of the way. 2 Thess. 2:7 So your explanation corroborates my prior suspicions.
Which gives rise to question 2, based on these hypothetical facts. 16 year old minor John Adams applies for a Social Security Card because a prospective hirer has told him he cannot be hired without a Social Security Number. Minor John Adams applies for the SSN. Adam's legal guardian does not sign the application. Minor Adams obtains the SSN and is hired, but has no understanding of the true nature of the relationship to which he has obligated himself. Minor Adams reaches the age of majority and continues in his capacity as Trustee without ever understanding the nature of the relationship. 30 years later, John Adams obtains an understanding of the obligations. Question 2: "Within a reasonable time after understanding his obligations under the contract, and before taking any subsequent acts that may be construed as ratification of the contract, may John Adams rescind his contract to act as Trustee on the grounds that (1) he lacked capacity to contract as a minor, and (2) he did not comprehend the contractual obligations at any time after reaching the age of majority?"
[hr][/hr]WE do not generally respond to hypothetical questions and again the support necessary so to reply here takes us into the realm of beneficiary support, so our response will be quite limited. Accordingly, the answer is, “No.” the actor remains bound by the law of the contract in that the willing admission of the minor along with the tacit admission of the guardians suffices for the agreement in the face of the law that requires that they knew or should have known the terms of the agreement and at the moment the minor became accountable he also knew or should have known the terms and conditions of the agreement; thus, no lag time exists between that accountability in either law or contract law. The term in law so expressed is, “He knew or should have known.”
Still, your problem is you are still trying to figure out how to get out of the relationship, not how to use it to save our country and yourself. When you change your outlook to the proper path toward the solution you may begin to understand it. Certainly we could help if you were a Team Law beneficiary.
[hr][/hr]I'm endeavoring to ensure that I understand the typical relationship that exists between "one of the people" and SSA. The SSA is the creator (settlor)
. The beneficiary is Corp. U.S. The position of Trustee may be filled by "one of the people" who has agreed to act in that capacity. Which brings me to Question 3: What is the corpus?
Is it a juristic fiction known as a "person" under Corp. U.S.' 14th Amendment that was delivered into Corp. U.S., or is it a little blue card bearing the name of a "person"and a number? [hr][/hr]Oops! That was two questions. It’s OK though; because, we have already provided all of the information we can on that matter outside of a Team Law Beneficiary Agreement. Accordingly, we suggest you go back and read the Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole article and our presentation of Myth 22.
[hr][/hr]Question 4: "What is the relationship of the certificate of delivery of that juristic fiction "person" to the little blue card?"
[hr][/hr]We do not have enough information to understand your question. But regardless of that, with the questions you have already asked and the comments you have already made it is obvious to us that you already have enough experience with Team Law to know that our work and Team Law are worthy of your support; thus, at this point we are limited from giving you any further support outside of a Team Law Beneficiary Agreement; thus, from this point forward we are limited from providing you any further support usless you are a Team Law beneficiary.
[hr][/hr]Question 5: "Would an Affidavit of Rescission executed by the party who signed the certificate of delivery as the "informant" render the certificate a legal nullity?"
[hr][/hr]Asked and answered. “No cause for rescission exists.” No cause or condition will change that.
[hr][/hr]Question 6: "If so, how would such a rescission affect the SSA-created trust?"
I noted in another post:
Admin wrote:the person that lends consciousness and physical capacity to the office is not the Trustee.
I believe Admin intended to say "the human being that lends consciousness...". A "person" is
the office. [hr][/hr]Admin wrote the statement correctly.
[hr][/hr]For example, the Trustee in the SSA-created trust is a "person", and a human being lends that office his or her consciousness. Millions of people mistakenly believe a "person" referred to in statutory law means a man or woman. This misunderstanding is a means by which millions are enslaved.[hr][/hr]You are misunderstanding meaning and the usage of the word. (see The Cardinal Rule of Definitions)
[hr][/hr]We should teach people not to use it outside of its proper context. Generally, when a statute speaks of a "person", it does not include the sovereign. See United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258 (1947) and United States v. Fox, 94 USS 315.[hr][/hr]You might want to notice that Admin was the party that used the word “person” not someone or something else; and, the word as used applies to far more than just people in the application as Admin used the word. Thus, your imagination of Admin’s use of the word was far narrower than the actual use Admin gave by choosing to properly use the word “person” instead of referring only to people by choosing some other term. We are not bound by statutory definitions. (again see The Cardinal Rule of Definitions)
[hr][/hr]Lastly, while I adhere to the scriptural teaching that a laborer is worthy of his hire, it appears unlikely that I will attain beneficiary status, unless you find that my Heavenly Father has already blessed you with an amount sufficient for you to extend the privilege to me.[hr][/hr]Again, we refer you to the forum topic, How do I join Team Law? In that topic you should learn the Team Law beneficiary relationship is not available to you or to any other person for any amount of money or for any other exchangeable thing of value.
[hr][/hr](If He has, would you mind asking Him if He will nominate me?
)[hr][/hr]Though we appreciate your apparent attempt to at humor; such a thing (prayer) should not be made light of. Accordingly, if there be any praying that has not already been done on your behalf it is not something lacking on our part—thus, perhaps if your only means for securing a Team Law Beneficiary Endowment is prayer, you should be the one making that offer; and, according to “The Word” such an offer should be kept to yourself as your personal secret. Our experience thus far is, God always follows the Law and leaves all such matters up to men. We expect He will continue on that path where you are concerned.
[hr][/hr]These are dire times in which the lack of knowledge is destroying my Christian brothers and sisters and their children. That is why I freely give of the knowledge I have attained. I would not have attained it had not God freely blessed me with the mind and means and desire to seek it out. So as I am able, I help those who need help without charge during the hours that I'm not working for my daily bread.
In the service of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Joe F.[hr][/hr]Your final comments here imply a contradiction we will comment on but we will not accept a rebut to.
Again we refer you to the Open Forum article, How do I join Team Law?
From that topical thread you should understand that Team Law does all that it does without fee or cost to any Team Law beneficiary. All of the time and services provided by all who serve here at Team Law is provided voluntarily at no fee or cost. Regardless of the conditions in the world, we have already lengthened our stride and are doing all we know to do in the service of our King. Yet, when we need something we do not go out begging others to violate their Charters and give us that which we have no right to have by violating our agreements with every other person we work with. To do so would be to deny God or any right we have to come to Him except our right to repent.
Accordingly, as noted above, you need not pray to us for any unrighteous grant that would cause such violations of our agreements. Rather perhaps you may desire to repent of such a request and put your prayers to the proper source. Should He have the desire to forgive you and accordingly bless you, we are certain (as He has with so many others) it is within His powers to provide you with the resources to receive a nomination that comes in accord with the terms of our Charter. One thing will remain certain in that path, such a nomination will not come except it comes in accord with that Charter’s provisions; and no righteous person would ask for anything more regardless of his faith—his honor would require it.