:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

We hold a Free Conference Call every: Monday, Wednesday & Friday 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 next Conference Call!

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.

Sovereign, Person, and Relationship to SSA (Corp. U.S.)

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

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

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

Sovereign, Person, and Relationship to SSA (Corp. U.S.)

Postby SimplyThinkDreams » Saturday February 7th, 2009 4:17 pm MST

To Everyone at TeamLaw and members of this open forum:

I would like to thank all of those who have contributed to the site for the information at TeamLaw. It helped me see the flaws in the arguments of other false remedies I have been reading. I feel that I now understand the complete relationship I have with Corp. U.S. My logic follows. A birth certificate is the birth of a 'person' which by definition (I don't have Blacks Law so I used and online dictionary - BusinessDictionary.com) is an,

"individual, agency, association, branch, corporation, estate, group, partnership, or other entity or organization having legal rights and resposibilities seperate from those of other entities and/or of its owners or members."

An individual is defined by the same dictionary as, "person," which refers us back to the definition above.

A birth certificate is the birth of a person, which is not me a sovereign. It is only the birth of an entity with the ability to partake in commerce. This is completely seperate from me the sovereign.

As a result a result of the 14th amendment, only these entities are actually citizens, not me the sovereign. That is the big trick right there. People believe they are citizens instead of sovereigns. Only Citizens are suseptable to the codes and statutes of Corp.US.

When the SSA sends you a a SSC and you sign it you lend it corporate sole through your person, the signature act as evidence. In this relationship, I the sovereign have nothing to do with the trust. Only the person on my birth certificate, which is again not the sovereign.

In knowing this relationship one can keep their property in posession as a sovereign rather having it fall under jurisdiction of the Corp. U.S. and the IMF. One can also contract with with the U.S. Corp under their own terms allowing them to create their own ID, record their own record of their car, etc. In contracting with Corp. U.S. you the sovereign can create the terms. This puts all of the power back into your hands. In order to keep your assets etc. it is necessarily important to provide proof that they are are not connected to the person in anyway but are legally and lawfully the property of the sovereign.

I have read some information on how to do this and plan on figuring out the best ways. It would sure be nice to be a teamlaw beneficiary but I do not currently have the assets to go into King of Kings. This is because I have a student loan of 600/month and am currently unemployed. I am only 24 and do not have any savings at this point in life. I also believe that I do not need King of Kings because I can learn to do so properly on my own. However, it would be nice to have access to their information as well as TeamLaw's. Have you ever read How I Clobbered Every Beauricratic Cash-Confiscatory Agency Know to Man by Mary Croft. She has been contracting with the Corp. Canada and Corp. U.S. for a while now and tells of her experiences. She talks about the strawman and what not but it seems her understanding of the law is correct, just not defined properly on every level.

Once again I would like to thank all of those who have contributed to the information on TeamLaw's website and open forum.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Sovereign, Person, and Relationship to SSA (Corp. U.S.)

Postby Admin » Tuesday February 10th, 2009 3:52 pm MST

:h: SimplyThinkDreams:
You stated that you think you have it now then began to clarify your understanding with a few points of that “understanding”, which we will correct as follows:
SimplyThinkDreams wrote:A birth certificate is the birth of a 'person'
However, a Birth Certificate is not a birth; rather it is what it says it is—a Certificate.

You then quoted the “definition” of a “person” from an online dictionary as if such definitions are definitive, which they are not. Accordingly, we suggest that you review The Cardinal Rule of Definitions; where you may learn how to better understand definitions.

In this particular case, you are apparently applying the broad scope of all of the possibilities provided in that dictionary definition onto the unique “person” you presupposed was so “born” by the creation of the Birth Certificate. Oops! Even if the certificate could be so applied, that kind of application of a dictionary definition would not be proper. Again we suggest you review The Cardinal Rule of Definitions.

You took that allegation further relating it to yourself “a sovereign”, but as we already showed, the presupposition was incorrect; therefore, the comparison is also incorrect. To delve into the nature of such relationships in more depth would require Team Law beneficiary support, which limits that response to our Beneficiary Forum. Therefore, we are limited here to say said certificate is just that, a certificate; it is not a birth.

Also, the 14th amendment is only an amendment; therefore, it only states a limitation on the applicability of authority granted in the Constitution it amends. It cannot create a power or a nature of anything. Apparently, your reference to the 14th amendment is referring to Corp. U.S.’ amendment because the original jurisdiction 14th article of amendment is about slavery in the United States of America being limited to voluntary slavery. Accordingly, we suggest that you may want to order our audio recordings on the Corp. U.S.’ 14th article of amendment to gain a better understanding of that article.

SimplyThinkDreams wrote:Only Citizens are susceptiable to the codes and statutes of Corp.US.
(The color coded spelling correction is ours and was not part of the original quote. We provide that correction here so you can correct us if we misunderstood the word you intended to use. We always appreciate such corrections when they are provided to us because it helps us communicate better.)

Though we are aware many people seem to be under such a presupposition, it simply is not true. Corp. U.S. was lawfully created by the original jurisdiction government under martial law; it was then lawfully charged with the responsibilities of carrying out the business needs of the original jurisdiction government, which it continued to do. The problem today is, due to other circumstances its management of its responsibilities became far easier to fulfill by creating private contractual relationships with people and others. Though such contractual relationships are much simpler to regulate, Corp. U.S.’ management style put it into a situation where the required focus of its internal operations are increasingly moving towards its own defense of its own actions; cycling it towards its own destruction. That path will take the people with it because they are contracting parties so controlled.

More to your point, consider the effect of foreign drivers entering a State and violating the statutory provisions of that State; obviously their foreign status does not limit the Corp. State’s or Corp. U.S.’ ability to enforce the prevailing statutory codes. Thus, more parties are susceptible to such codes than citizens.
SimplyThinkDreams wrote:When the SSA sends you a a SSC and you sign it you lend it corporate sole
Again, you misunderstand the meaning of the term “corporation sole”. We go into the nature of that term in our Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole article, so we will not do that again here; other than to say, a corporation sole is nothing more than “consciousness created in contract”. Thus, because the Social Security Administration created the contractual nature before the relationship was formed with you, you could not possibly lend it “corporate sole”; rather, they created the corporate sole capacity by creating the contractual environment wherein consciousness was a necessary part. You simply lend your actual consciousness and physical capacity to the contractually created capacity known as, ‘Trustee’. Again, you are not the capacity “Trustee”, (if you choose to) you simply lend it your actual consciousness and physical capacity. The corporation sole nature of that capacity then provides you with corporate immunity from the Trust (so created) and from its lawful actions made in accord with its contractual construction.
SimplyThinkDreams wrote:I … have nothing to do with the trust. Only the person on my birth certificate
We have three new problems with that statement:
  1. You claim that you have nothing to do with “the trust”; however, we were of the understanding that you just indicated that you lend it your consciousness and physical capacity. That is something to do with it. It is such a profound something that many people do not seem to have even distinguished the they are separate from such trusts. In fact, it is almost impossible for such a trust to do anything without you being informed of its actions and regardless of what it does, it is almost impossible for it to act without your direct consent and participation. That is the very point of why the corporation sole nature is required—it protects you from its lawful actions. By that very same token, it does not protect you from unlawful acts. Thus, you must know the law so that you can keep it free from unlawful acts. If you do not you will most certainly be the responsible party!
  2. You here claimed “my birth certificate” though moments ago you implied that you do not have one; it being ‘the birth of a third party’ and all. Our problem with that is more of the point that people often express conflicts in their own opinion when such matters are considered. Such conflicts are a good sign that some point of understanding was missed of misapplied. Thus, we suggest following the Standard for Review whenever considering any relationships.
  3. The trust created by accepting the responsibility for holding Corp. U.S.’ Social Security card cannot possibly be accomplished by the “person” you alleged to have been created by the birth certificate. No matter how you review that allegation, no party so related could possibly have had the actual consciousness necessary for such acceptance so no such relationship could possibly exist there.
What follows that part of your review so heavily applies only to that errant understanding so as to make it impossible for us to reply to without entering the realm of support that would require Team Law beneficiary support so we cannot address that here; except for the implication that the Team Law beneficiary relationship is something that you have to have assets to acquire, which is incorrect. Thus, considering that matter is answered in our response called How do I join Team Law? we will leave you with that link to help you better understand that matter.

Though it is true, you can learn on your own, the problem with that is time and the obvious potential for misunderstandings, the likes of which we hope this response has been helpful to resolve. Still, if you go about in such a study by following third party resources the likes of which you referenced from Mary Croft; you will not be successful unless you can discern fiction from the facts and the law. Of course, to do that you must first know the law, which requires your own first hand study of history, language and the actual law before you will know how accurate such third party resources are. That means you will have to be able to discern the obvious error in the statement:
SimplyThinkDreams wrote:She talks about the strawman and what not but it seems her understanding of the law is correct.
Such a reference to the most notorious patriot myth of all time — the nonexistent Strawman, indicates she hasn’t the slightest idea about the truth regarding such matters. That is like worshiping a Chicken as your God because it can fly and professing a belief in the God of the Old Testament!

The two concepts are mutually exclusive. We provided the link to our Patriot Mythology page’s review of the Strawman, which is followed on the Patriot Mythology page by Strawman revisited, “I copyrighted my name”, U.C.C. 1 filings and Expatriation/Repatriation. What we did not post there is what can happen if a person is marketed into following the self-proclaimed Strawman pundits; that is, by filing such U.C.C. 1 filings and proceeding with any attempt to “capture the strawman”, they send fraudulent mail related to a federal person, which is a crime punishable by 30 years in jail and a one million dollar fine per violation. That means each piece of mail used in that process qualifies for another fine and respective consecutive jail term. Not bad for the reward for following your own course of study and missing the target because of some patriot myth marketer.

That is also why we always say the place to study law its language and history is from the actual law, and from our actual history, not from third party resources sourced on the internet. Team Law is not such a source that tells you what to do; rather Team Law only helps you learn how to on-point learn law for yourself, from your own experience and process. That way you can start where you are with what you know or think you know and nurture your own ability to prevail in doing what you are already required to do but have never done—learn the law from the law.

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

Re: Sovereign, Person, and Relationship to SSA (Corp. U.S.)

Postby SimplyThinkDreams » Wednesday February 11th, 2009 12:14 am MST

Admin,
You suggested that I go to The Cardinal Rule of Definitions. However, I cannot access that information. I am assuming that it is solely for Team Law Beneficiaries. I am getting a better understanding of how definitions work in law and that it is very important to realize the context in which a particular definition is being applied.
Admin wrote:…'person' lending cosciousness and physical capacity to it.
How can a 'person' lend conciousness? From this statement, I would assume that person means the physical body of my living being. Is this correct?
Black's Law Dictionary wrote:Certificate of registry:

Maritime law. A document certifying that a ship has been registered as required by law.

Also:
Black's Law Dictionary wrote:Registry:
1. Register. 2. Maritime law. The list or record of ships subject to a particular country's maritime regulations.
A birth certificate is registered by a registrar making it a 'certificate of registry.' Is this the registration of a born 'person' or citizen as it states in the 14th amendment of Corp. U.S. Constitution? From my understanding it is. I am having difficulty understanding how I am related to such a person or if I am actually that person? If this 'person' is indeed me, I presume that I can unregister myself from that registry and hence out of the jurisdiction of maritime law now that I am old enough to do so legally. Is such a presumption correct? Is this registered person the same person that lends conciousness to the Trust as quoted above? Is this me? Is my physical body considered a vessel under maritime law? Or is this vessel strictly a ficticious entity able to operate under maritime law?

I realize this post might be a little confusing. I wish I had access to the Cardinal Rule of Definitions as it may have cleared up my understanding of 'person' in the context of the Corporation Sole as well as the context of the 14th amendment of Corp. U.S. Does the name on the birth certificate mean my physical body has been registered? Or is this some other entity?

I am trying to be as clear as possible but my brain is all over the place right now trying to figure this all out. Thank you once again for your kind and generous help.

SimplyThinkDreams

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Sovereign, Person, and Relationship to SSA (Corp. U.S.)

Postby Admin » Thursday February 12th, 2009 11:57 am MST

:h: SimplyThinkDreams:
Oops! We apologize. We had not noticed that the The Cardinal Rule of Definitions is located within the Beneficiary Forum. We simply did a search on the word “definitions” using the search tool at the top of every page of the forum. From that we compiled the Rule and placed the title of it in the most obvious message containing the components of the rule; then we linked that reference to your message—turns out, that message was in the Beneficiary Forum. Again, the gist of that rule can be found in many messages on the Open Forum but we will compile it for you here as well; we hope it is helpful. This kind of information is always available to Team Law’s beneficiaries.

The Cardinal Rule of Definitions
    1. Dictionary definitions are not definitive; rather,
      • they are a lexicographer’s (author or editor of a dictionary's) representative opinion of the time and context sensitive common usage of a word or phrase.
    2. Statutory definitions are definitive; however:
      • they only apply within the specific context of the Statute that defines them;
      • they only apply to the exact word or phrase so defined; and,
      • they only apply when the exact word or phrase defined is actually used within the Statute the definition was defined for.
If you will remember this rule, you may start to better understand the law and what is happening around us with sufficient ability such that you can help us make a change for the better. It will also help you unravel many patriot movement and tax protestor myths. It will now help us respond to your most recent post.

You asked how a person could loan “consciousness”, but took the quote out of its context, which shows the lender loans both consciousness and physical capacity. We think that is clearly described in the Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole article and to address the matter with greater depth than we have there you would have to have Team Law beneficiary status. We can suggest you might develop a better understanding of the concept by considering the professional athlete’s contract. The contract secures the actual ownership of the athlete. The relationship of the corporation sole is quite different from that at least in that, it does not deal with actual ownership; however, considering the athlete’s contract may help you understand how a person can loan consciousness and physical capacity.

You cited several definitions from Black’s Law Dictionary, but then attempted to use those definitions as if they were definitive in the usage of the words so defined. As you will now know that is not how dictionary definitions work.

At this point, in fact, just before we posted this response, it became clearly apparent, from your posts, that you are now aware that Team Law is worthy of your support. Thus, our Charter limits us from providing you further support until you are a Team Law beneficiary. Still, we hope this response is helpful to you and that you have discovered how important that you learn the law, its language and history from your actual hands on study of it instead of from third party sources.

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