:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

We generally hold Free Conference Calls every: Monday, Wednesday & Friday morning from:
8:00 – 9:00 AM (Mountain Time)
Join us on our next Conference Call and invite your friends.

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

Remember: Our Trustee's Holiday Season Break begins at close of business on: December 15, 2017!
Which means he will not be available from then until: January 15, 2018; during which time there will be no conference calls and no support calls to our Trustee. However, the Fulfillment Office will only be closed from: December 22, 2017, until: January 8, 2018.

So, make sure that you take care of any of your end of year needs now, before our offices close.

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.

Jurisdiction —

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

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

User avatar
Bayaba
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 36
Joined: Sunday June 12th, 2005 10:42 am MDT

Jurisdiction —

Postby Bayaba » Friday August 26th, 2005 8:22 pm MDT

It is becoming clear to me that every time we enter a contract that "licenses" us to go about doing just about anything from driving a car to traveling abroad (passport) and from practicing medicine to swinging a hammer (as I do, although I have not complied because I do not understand what law compels me to do so), we are entering into a contract with a foreign corporation.

If my understanding is correct, how is it that the foreign corporation's administrative courts (at least that is what I have come to believe thay in fact are) can claim jurisdiction, since this would be a matter of international commerce?

Wouldn't we have to seek remedy from a judicial body that has jurisdiction over international martters?

If all this is correct, shouldn't we seek representation from international attornies (IBA) rather than members of the ABA or the Corp. State of XXXXX Bar Associations?

Wouldn't Caveat Emptor apply if we hire a member of the ABA or Corp. State of XXXXX Bar Association to represent us when they have no jurisdiction in these matters?

I understand that the Corp. U.S. etc. does have jurisdiction over that which they have created, the entity which has a name that may sound like ours when spoken, but my questions are in regard to the relationship that we have with such an entity.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Jurisdiction

Postby Admin » Saturday August 27th, 2005 2:26 pm MDT

:h: Bayaba,
The simple answer to your inquiry is:
  1. Such relations are voluntary and rarely have anything to do with people.
  2. We are aware of no law that requires any kind of licensing of people in the United States of America.
  3. The courts you related to in your inquiry have little or nothing to do with any matter dealing with the laws of this country or its people.
Then we are stumped by your final comment:
Bayaba wrote:I understand that the Corp. U.S. etc. does have jurisdiction over that which they have created, the entity which has a name that may sound like ours when spoken, but my questions are in regard to the relationship that we have with such an entity.
Our first response regarding the relationships you referenced in your inquiry was one that would have pointed out the fact that all such relationships are voluntary and are usually not made with people at all, rather they are made with such entities as you suggest you ‘understand Corp. U.S. etc. has jurisdiction over’. But your final comment sheds some light on why some people seem to have difficulty separating themselves and their private actions from those of such entities.

Therefore, to resolve this we must refer you back to our Open Forum topic Contracts, Trusts & the Corp. Sole located at the following link: http://www.teamlawproductions.com/phpBB ... c.php?t=24, with the hope that you will learn the difference between such entities (like trusts created by Corp. U.S’. Social Security Administration) and yourself. The latter part of that topic shows the contractual nature of the relationship where the person that lends its consciousness and physical capacity to such trusts through a corporation sole nature thus creating corporate immunity and states:
In Contracts, Trusts & the Corp. Sole Team Law wrote:Thus, because the capacity Trustee was created so that the Trust can function, when the Trustee acts it is the Trust that is acting and not the person lending consciousness and physical capacity to it. (bold emphasis added)
This should resolve most of your inquiry. If it does not we refer you to the follow-up topic on the Team Law Beneficiary Private Forum: Social Security Administration created Trusts located at the following link: http://teamlawproductions.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=26. To review that topic you will have to be a Team Law beneficiary.

Another topic on this Open Forum that sheds more light on the matter as it relates to licensing, etc. is Owning a business... located at the following link: http://teamlawproductions.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=67, where we also reviewed the nature of the Corp. State and licensing business relations with them. More particularly please focus on the first part of the Parties section:
In Owning a business... Team Law wrote:
  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 http://www.wayofkings.com ).
      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 Beneficiarys' Private Forum topic Social Security Administration created Trusts located at the following link: http://teamlawproductions.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=26 (to access that link you must be a 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.
Notice that the party defined therein as, “SSC”, is not the man. Notice also that from the review of the Open Forum topic Contracts, Trusts & the Corp. Sole you learned of the corporate immunity for the man when serving in such capacities by lending his consciousness and physical capacity to them. It is the Trust that is acting not the man. It is critical that we remember this when looking at relationships with such entities.
Further,
In Owning a business... Team Law wrote:2. 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.
We warn you of the necessity of reading these quotes from within the context of their original publications as shown above. We reprint them here for convenience and hope you do not shortcut yourself by simply following along here, thus missing the whole picture. When reviewing any relationship it is a necessity that you follow the full Standard for Review to comprehend the relationship.

Understanding one’s own nature, the nature of Corp. U.S., the relationship the Social Security Administration created trust and the nature of the Corp. State’s creation and involvement in the relationship are the first step necessary to understanding the relationships involved in your inquiry. That understanding sets the environment of the relationship.

That set as the foundation, you should comprehend our following point-by-point response to your inquiry: You stated:
Bayaba wrote:It is becoming clear to me that every time we enter a contract that "licenses" us to go about doing just about anything from driving a car to traveling abroad (passport) and from practicing medicine to swinging a hammer, we are entering into a contract with a foreign corporation.
The first question we have to ask to understand the presuppositions of your statement is, who are you referencing with your use of “we”, as in “we enter a contract”. If you were referring to said trust (hereinafter “SSC”) the answer seems too obvious, thus eliminating the need for the inquiry. If you were referencing some General Partnership relationship with SSC, the result is the same. The remaining possibility seems to be a reference to people in general entering into such relationships, which meaning does not fit the parameters of the relationship in question; which in most cases is a relationship between the Corp. State and SSC—not people. Still, this last usage for “we” fits the common difficulty some people seem to have distinguishing themselves and their actions from the nature, being and actions of such trusts (like SSC). We expect this last usage is the one you used. Please remember, that usage makes no sense unless you have formed a General Partnership with the SSC; in which case, you stated you already understand the Corp. State/Corp. U.S. jurisdiction and control. More to the point, that relationship would not be contracting with a foreign corporation, because that relationship would not be foreign to itself or to its parent (creator/Corp. U.S.).

The following parenthetical insert was removed from within the last quote we referenced from your inquiry:
Bayaba wrote:although I have not complied because I do not understand what law compels me to do so
It seems apparent from this comment that the final usage of “we” as we noted above was accurate because this comment plainly references you as a man. It also accurately states the fact that there is no law that could so compel you in this country, except as one may choose to privately contract in accord with their voluntary participation with SSC. Within the framework of the contractual relations regarding SSC you compel yourself to comply with the terms of those contractual agreements.
Subsequently:
Bayaba wrote:If my understanding is correct, how is it that the foreign corporation's administrative courts (at least that is what I have come to believe they in fact are) can claim jurisdiction, since this would be a matter of international commerce?
As shown above the relationships between the parties of such conflicts as they may be called into such courts is not foreign to themselves; therefore, your apparent understanding was not correct.
Bayaba wrote:Wouldn't we have to seek remedy from a judicial body that has jurisdiction over international matters?
No.
Bayaba wrote:Wouldn't Caveat Emptor apply if we hire a member of the ABA or Corp. State of XXXXX Bar Association to represent us when they have no jurisdiction in these matters?
Caveat Emptor, simply means “buyer beware”, which always applies to any situation where anyone is purchasing anything from anyone. So, it always applies. Further, an attorney is a person that is authorized by another person to take the place of said other person to act in said other person’s stead in some matter; therefore, an attorney is not a person with a specific jurisdiction, rather attorneys contractually represent their clients in whatever jurisdiction the matter applies to. Licenses for attorneys are another matter (not the subject of this review).

Again, the simple answer was such relations rarely have anything to do with people. The natural questions raised by a person understand this are
  1. How do I lawfully avoid being compelled into service under such licenses; and,
  2. How do I use such relationships as the SSC to control Corp. U.S. and to maintain my privacy and the security of my natural God given inherent rights, privileges and immunities as secured by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America?
However, to get the answers to those questions from Team Law you must be a Team Law beneficiary.

We hope this information is helpful to you; if you find it so: Please tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Last edited by Admin on Tuesday March 13th, 2007 12:56 pm MDT, edited 1 time 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
Bayaba
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 36
Joined: Sunday June 12th, 2005 10:42 am MDT

Postby Bayaba » Sunday August 28th, 2005 12:09 pm MDT

Is the relationship between the trust and the trustee contractual?

If so, wouldn't such a contract be international in nature, due to the fact the trust was created by a foreign corporation?

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Postby Admin » Sunday August 28th, 2005 4:01 pm MDT

:h: Bayaba,
We don’t get it? How many times have we responded to questions on this topic and said the first thing you must do is go back to the Standard for Review presented in the Open Forum topic Contracts, Trusts & the Corp. Sole located at the following link: http://www.teamlawproductions.com/phpBB ... c.php?t=24? That topic plainly answers your first question. Thus, we are not going to here repeat our answer your question:
Bayaba wrote:Is the relationship between the trust and the trustee contractual?
You will have to figure it out and tell us. You will have to apply the Standard for Review given in that article yourself. Go to the link shown above and read it, then apply it, then let us know what you learned.

As to your second question:
Bayaba wrote:If so, wouldn't such a contract be international in nature, due to the fact the trust was created by a foreign corporation?
The fact that a corporation is foreign has nothing to do with where the contract was agreed. Just because a party of a contract is from a foreign locale does not make a contract foreign. Think about it, if you are in the Chinatown section of Los Angeles and you purchase food from a Chinese owned restaurant, are you alleging that the contract of the purchase in L.A. is foreign, just because the proprietor is not a citizen of this country? Another example: when we were setting up our law office in Phoenix, Arizona we had occasion to rent some facilities in the area. The owner of the management company that managed the properties turned out to be the Chinese government. That however did not make the rental agreement Chinese. The agreement was made in Phoenix and was governed according to the contractual relations, statutes and law applicable to the agreement and to the area where the agreement was made and where the property was located. Considering that the Corp. State of Arizona was a property tax collector for that property, they had respective statutory controls over the agreement.

We hope this information is helpful to you; if you find it so: Please tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Last edited by Admin on Tuesday March 13th, 2007 1:00 pm MDT, 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
Bayaba
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 36
Joined: Sunday June 12th, 2005 10:42 am MDT

Postby Bayaba » Sunday August 28th, 2005 10:15 pm MDT

It must be a mental block from years of being programed to think otherwise. I have read the information several times and I understand what it says. I guess this is my lesson in how difficult it can be to change deeply engrained ways of thinking.

I appreciate your helping me work thru this though.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Postby Admin » Sunday August 28th, 2005 11:08 pm MDT

:h: Bayaba,
We understand the ‘mental block from years of programming’. Still, when you trade a used car in for a new one, the next morning you don’t go out looking for the old car; you simply forget about it and move on. If you get married, in the morning after the wedding your life has changed—you simply adjust. This is no different. The facts support the truth and they never supported the fiction. The facts plainly explain the way things are—the fiction does not. The adjustment is easy if you simply make it a part of you, just like you would a new car or a new spouse.

We hope on your final review you understood the relationship that creates the Trustee capacity is a contract. That is why the capacity is called a “consciousness created in contract”; which is the definition of a corporation sole. We expect the Open Forum topic Contracts, Trusts & the Corp. Sole covered that matter quite well. The relationship and more importantly the nature of the relationship is critical to virtually every relationship anyone has with Corp. U.S. or the Corp. State.

At this point it is also necessary for us to remind you that because you have developed sufficient understanding that Team Law is worthy of your support; therefore, our Charter forbids us from continuing to beneficiary style support and answers unless the inquirer is a Team Law beneficiary. Therefore, we welcome your continued support and look forward to hearing from you when you become a Team Law beneficiary.

We hope the information has helpful to you: Please tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Last edited by Admin on Wednesday March 7th, 2007 11:33 am 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.

Gldskr
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 5
Joined: Friday January 26th, 2007 11:09 pm MST

Postby Gldskr » Wednesday January 31st, 2007 7:27 pm MST

When one contracts, it is presumed that the parties are aware of the jurisdiction of the contract. But where some contracts have authoritative verbiage (as in a summons) and one party is ignorant as to the nature of the parties and their relationship to one another; if such a contract was entered into by the ignorant party (by answering the complaint) unknowingly and unwillingly, wouldn't this be cause for the contract to be voidable, ab initio ?

gldskr

Thomas Robert
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 15
Joined: Wednesday September 13th, 2006 8:02 am MDT

Postby Thomas Robert » Thursday February 1st, 2007 1:16 pm MST

How can summons be a contract? I went to the Standard for Review , under Contracts, and as far as I can tell a summons does'nt qualify. I think a summons is simply a request to appear at a certain date and time. I also think that a summons only applies to a tustee of a SSA, not a man.

I would like to ask Admin for an opinion on this as I am not sure if I am right about the above paragraph. I'm not sure on the valuable consideration over time, and acceptance, would only happen if you showed up. Also, Should the trustee decide not to lend his consciousness to act on the summons, a default and subseqent action would only go against the SSA and its assets, not the man.

Question: Is the trustee of an SSA required to act to every communication it recieves or only to ones that he deems nessesary for the benifit of the SSA trust? In other words what if the trustee is incompetent or refuses to act?

Thank you in advance for your reply.

Thomas Robert, son of Raymond

Thomas Robert
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 15
Joined: Wednesday September 13th, 2006 8:02 am MDT

Postby Thomas Robert » Saturday February 3rd, 2007 9:01 am MST

I would like to amend my previous post. After further thought (I have been mulling this over in my head for a couple of days)on the matter of a summons not being a contact, I was probably wrong. I hope that by expressing my thoughts on this forum and by making mistakes, others will learn from it ,as I hope to.

Consider the following:

The giver, The court
The reciever The one being handed the summons
Valuable consideration over time When the summons server streches out his hand ,to hand you the summons, and you reach out for it. (It's the thought that counts.)
Acceptance, When you took it. After only thinking about it for 5 seconds, you just made contract.

This also explains why a summons cannot be left where no one is there, and the server must qualify you as being the correct party, by asking you if you are so and so.

Thank you ,in advance, for your reply.
Thomas Robert, son of Raymond

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Jurisdiction

Postby Admin » Tuesday February 6th, 2007 7:22 pm MST

:h: Thomas Robert:
That was close. How about:
  • The giver: The Prosecutor/Petitioner
  • The receiver: Defendant/Respondent
  • Valuable consideration over time: This starts with the cause for jurisdictional obligation to respond to the court’s Summons and continues until the terms of that cause are resolved by the court’s mediator (the Judge), which resolve is elemental to the new contract created through the court’s action and verdict; thus, you may see that there are at least two contracts in play here, the jurisdictional cause that compels the court forward and the final resolve of the court.
  • Acceptance:
    1. In the contract that compelled jurisdiction to the cause of action, its acceptance was made before the court case was ever begun, thus compelling jurisdiction to exist and giving the court the power adjudicate the case and compel a response to its Summons;
    2. In the contract of the final outcome of the case, the former contract empowered the court with jurisdiction to hear the case and to resolve the matter by its jurisdictional authority to rule on the case and thus compel acceptance with its verdict. There are those that would, at this point allege, acceptance cannot be forced, which is true, but has nothing to do with the outcome. The jurisdictional cause compelled onto the court the full authority of both the giver and the receiver such that the court’s verdict is actually compelled upon all of the parties to the case by their own agreement, which is again proven by the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.
Thus, in the government of a civil society, we agree to grant jurisdiction to courts; making things like our constitutions the contract with the government wherein we grant our sovereign word and authority to the court to compel us to respond to the jurisdiction we so granted it. In Corp. U.S., and that which follows, we similarly grand such jurisdiction in accord with the contracts we operate therein through. That gives the court our authority to hold us accountable to the terms reached by the rule of the court and if we do not agree we retain several rights to various appeals processes.

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.

Hugh
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 10
Joined: Thursday November 3rd, 2005 7:30 pm MST

Jurisdictional definitions of entities

Postby Hugh » Tuesday March 6th, 2007 8:27 pm MST

This subject matter is extremely helpful and we are very grateful that it is available to us and, obviously, widely viewed.

Regarding the status of the contractually created "entity" which may be involved in some sort of controversy; when the entity is identified by its NAME and assigned SS Number it is considered to be an INDIVIDUAL; when the entity is identified by its NAME and assigned Employer Identification Number then it is considered to be a TRUST / ESTATE.

We are wondering if Team Law has yet identified the provision in the laws which makes or defines that distinction as de jure, or whether it is simply "presumed" until rebutted?

Our research thus far has not come up with anything conclusive.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Jurisdictional definitions of entities

Postby Admin » Wednesday March 7th, 2007 11:55 am MST

:h: Hugh
We have no idea where that presumption comes from. The use of terms like “is considered to be” where there is no information regarding the party doing the considering creates an inherent problem with such presuppositions.

The taxpayer is what it is, from the moment of its creation on. There is no change in the nature of the party just because they applied for an Employer Identification Number. Therefore, there is no need for a rebuttal of some imagined nature.

Further support regarding the nature of the taxpayer requires Team Law beneficiary support, which is available to you in the Beneficiary Forum.

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.

Hugh
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 10
Joined: Thursday November 3rd, 2005 7:30 pm MST

INDIVIDUAL or TRUST?

Postby Hugh » Wednesday March 7th, 2007 5:31 pm MST

Thank you for your speedy response.

That opinion on what is considered to be an INDIVIDUAL for tax liability purposes is from an oral interview with an attorney from IRS Office of Chief Counsel and it was said to be the distinction that is made in federal courts.

We agree with your statement that 'it is what it is' because that is what it was created as.

Since Partnerships can qualify as an INDIVIDUAL, according to certain legal dictionary definitions, that may be the desired connection for purposes of enforced liability.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: INDIVIDUAL or TRUST?

Postby Admin » Thursday March 8th, 2007 11:50 am MST

:h: Hugh:
Our question was not regarding the term “individual”, rather it was regarding who was doing the “consideration”. We expected you were relating to something like what you responded with. Of course, such an “oral interview” like that raises a bunch of new questions regarding usage because as you noted the term “individual” can apply to almost anything and is definitively used by IRS and by the Corp. U.S. to describe partnerships, trusts, people and even at times corporations. Therefore, the term cannot be discerned strictly from usage and the best way to resolve its usage in any given situation is to step back to the application itself. If the term is being used to describe an “individual” taxpayer and that taxpayer has a Social Security number then you can almost certainly understand that for that application the term is representative of an individual trust created by Social Security Administration.

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.

Hugh
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 10
Joined: Thursday November 3rd, 2005 7:30 pm MST

Who says what?

Postby Hugh » Thursday March 8th, 2007 2:52 pm MST

Thank you for the additional clarification.

We agree, and that is essentially how we responded to the narrow application of the terminology by counsel for IRS. The barriers to truth and the hurdles/obstacles to justice that the system has erected to its advantage are numerous!

We suppose what we're really wondering is what sort of argument, with what level of detail, would prevail and settle conclusively the ambiguity of the question which they always seem to raise?

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Who says what?

Postby Admin » Friday March 9th, 2007 12:20 pm MST

:h: Hugh:
Though we expect it should go without saying, your last inquiry definitely requires Team Law beneficiary support for our response; thus, we cannot provide it in this forum.

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