:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

Please note:
Pastor Butch Paugh, of: GNC Radio Network’s: “Call to Decision” radio show, will interview: Eric W. Madsen, Team Law’s Trustee, this:
Saturday, July. 8, 2017, at: 6:00 PM (MT).
Call In Line: (855) 242-8824,
Listen Line: (605)562-4040.

Our new Free Conference Call schedule is every: Monday, Wednesday & Friday morning from:
8:00 – 9:00 AM (Mountain Time).

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

Though our Trustee is otherwise out of the office this week (July 10, 2017 – July 14, 2017), our Trustee will continue to hold Conference calls
at their regularly scheduled times; with one exception: there will be no conference call Monday, July 17, 2017.

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^:

BIG Questions on Corp. US theory

Use this forum for contacting Team Law regarding the original jurisdiction elections.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Pngrata
Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Friday July 28th, 2006 1:17 pm MDT

BIG Questions on Corp. US theory

Postby Pngrata » Friday July 28th, 2006 2:05 pm MDT

Hi all. My uncle and mom have gotten into this stuff and wanted me to take a look at it. I have some big questions:

1) How in the world did you get a Corporate US from the DC Organic Act? All it seems to me that the DC organic act does is set up a local government (like Chicago, or Salt Lake, or Seattle) to take care of running the city, which exploded in population after the war. Congress didn't want to spend all their time running a city when they had a country to take care of.

2) How are you running for Governor when you claim the various original jurisdiction governments are empty? How would you run such an election with no Secretary of State or various state elections officials, as required by "original jurisdiction" (pre-1944) laws?

3) Why do you think the IMF authorization act equals a quit-claim deed on Corp US, when its nothing of the sort? Heck, it's not even a contract with the IMF.

4) Why do you think that, even if the supposed Corp US is now in foreign hands, that means the "original jurisdiction" government is empty? Corporate law is very clear that someone can be an officer of two corporations at the same time, even if such corporations have conflicting interests. All it means is that the officer's actions are open to scrutiny for potential failure to abide by their contractual obligations with each corporation. Plus, under the theory, the orig. juris. government must have authorized being able to sit in both the corporate and o.j. offices at the same time, so why couldn't that same authorization hold in perpetuity?

Those are the big, most relevant ones. I have others too but they can wait.

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

Re: BIG Questions on Corp. US theory

Postby Admin » Saturday July 29th, 2006 4:26 pm MDT

:h: Pngrata:
Before we respond to your questions we need to inform you that we have already answered each of your questions repeatedly on our website, in the WARN newsletter and or on our Open Forum, thus we note that if you had done your own research to confirm what we have already presented, or even with the intent to prove us wrong, you would have likely discovered the truth from your own effort. This is exactly what we are hoping to inspire people to do — their own timely research. Not to trust what we (or anyone else) have presented, rather to check the events we have pointed to and prove the truth for themselves, through their own research.

Nonetheless, we appreciate your questions. They are good ones. We would have likely had nearly the same questions if we had been looking at each of the respective historical events from a present viewing the past perspective. However, of necessity we were studying our history from its foundation following our Standard for Review so we caught facts that seem to allude other people when they read history starting from the present and looking back to the events from the past not actually knowing how the people then got there. We were also studying combined with fasting and prayer to solicit guidance from our Creator. Our quest was for a discovery of how we can save our country and our Constitution from hanging by a thread along with our God given inherent rights.

We were looking because events in our personal lives created a necessity for discovering the truth. We had a land battle going on and we had to prove our land rights to keep our land and property. That’s where we learned there is a difference between Land and property appurtenant to Land. That’s what took us to the first land granted to the settlers from the Mayflower. As we followed that history forward we discovered how our government was really formed. We followed the Law and our History. With God’s help we discovered the truth. It speaks for itself too.

This is exactly why we are constantly referring people back to the Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole article’s Standard for Review. It shows the necessity of knowing the parties involved in any given situation. Now, with that preface, we will address your questions point by point as follows:
pngrata wrote:1) How in the world did you get a Corporate US from the DC Organic Act? All it seems to me that the DC organic act does is set up a local government (like Chicago, or Salt Lake, or Seattle) to take care of running the city, which exploded in population after the war. Congress didn't want to spend all their time running a city when they had a country to take care of.
If you take the Act out of its historical context and imagine who the parties involved are, we might agree. However, we cannot do that. Our first response to that question is, nice imagination based guess; however, history shows Congress has not “run” the District of Columbia, or any city in it, since its beginning. To best understand what really happened we follow said Standard for Review:
Team Law wrote:Standard for Review
Rule 1:
To understand any relationship you must:
  1. First understand who the parties are;
    1. Always know yourself first
    2. Discover the true nature of all other parties second
  2. Then you must understand the environmental nature of the relationship; and,
  3. Only then do the actual terms of the relationship begin to have meaning and bearing on the relationship.
Rule 2: To have any hope of understanding any particular situation in any relationship you must have first applied Rule 1, only then do the details of the situation in question have any meaning; therefore, review such details in accord with Rule 1 as well.
Thus, to understand the parties involved in the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, we must first understand who the parties are involved in the relationship described by the Act. We are not here going to delve into the Act in its entirety, suffice it to say, looking over the situation we find the Act is one made by the original jurisdiction Congress, set by the Constitution for the United States of America. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 describes its venue as: “all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia”. The District of Columbia was originally provided for in the Constitution for the United States of America (9-17-1787) at Article 1 Section 8, specifically in the last two clauses. Then, on July 16, 1790, in accord with the provisions of those clauses, the Territory was formed in the District of Columbia Act, wherein the “ten mile square” territory was permanently created and made the permanent location of the country’s government, that is to say, the “territory” includes the actual government. Under the Act Congress also made the President the civic leader of the local government in all matters in said Territory. Then on February 27, 1801, under the second District of Columbia Act, two counties were formed and their respective officers and district judges were appointed. Further, the established town governments of Alexandria, Georgetown and Washington were recognized as constituted and placed under the laws of the District, its judges, etc. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly called this act the “District of Columbia Organization Act” or the “Charter Act of the District of Columbia” and recognized it as the incorporation of the “municipality” known as the “District of Columbia”. Then on March 3, 1801 a Supplementary Act to that last Act, noted here, added the authority that the Marshals appointed by the respective District Court Judges collectively form a County Commission with the authority to appoint all officers as may be needed in similarity to the respective State officials in the states whence the counties Washington and Alexandria came, those being Maryland and Virginia, respectively.

Now, we don’t know what a casual observer not educated in the history of these matters might think of all of this, but to us (and the United States Supreme Court), those Acts comprise the Charter Act for the formation (incorporation) of the formal government of the District of Columbia as chartered by Congress in accord with the Constitution’s provision. Again, the Supreme Court called that body of government “a corporation”, with the right to sue and be sued. Specifically since 1801 it has been consistently recognized as a “municipal corporation”.

That sets the basics for the first rule of our Standard for Review, know the parties, more proof is available to those that want to seek it, but it is not our job to do that work for you. What we have presented is sufficient to show the basics of who the parties are as they related to resolving the answer to your question. We admonish everyone to prove the facts for themselves.

The second rule from our Standard for Review is: “Then you must understand the environmental nature of the relationship.” With that in mind let’s consider the events of the time: the Civil War had recently ended and the country was still under Lincoln’s Conscription Act, that is to say, Martial Law. Congress had at least three problems they could see no way to directly cure by following the laws of the land: they were out of funds, they had promised 40 acres of land to each slave that left the South to fight for the North and they had to reintegrate the south into the Union, which they could not do without controlling the appointment of the Southern States Congressional members. There were other problems but these three stand out from the rest. That is enough about the environment for the purposes of this review, however the more you study the historical events of this time the more obvious the relationships will become and the more proof you will amass to prove the facts of what actually happened. In the interest of time and space in this response we will move on.

The last step of the Standard for Review’s discovery process requires a review of the actual terms of the relationship. Thus, we review the first paragraph of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 where
Congress wrote:That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes … and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation
Knowing the government of the District of Columbia was already incorporated as a municipal incorporation in 1801, we wonder, even with Congress’ constitutional authority to pass any law within the ten mile square of the District, how do you create for the first time a municipal government that has already been in existence for over 70 years? The obvious answer is, “It’s impossible!” There is no way to pass an “Organic Act” when the Charter Act is already in place, because the two words (organic and charter) have the same meaning—The First Act. Even Congress cannot change history; though historians can make it appear to change by rewriting it for those unwilling to study the past from the records. The records speak for themselves only if we study them.

When you consider the historical facts, the only meaning left for the terms given in the opening paragraph of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 is, the municipal corporation that was created is a private corporation owned by the actual government. And the only government that was created in that Act is the same as the power of government that any private corporation has within the operation of its own construct. Thus we call it Corp. U.S.

Where the answer to your first question is the key to the answers to the rest of your questions (and so much else that has happened) we addressed it with a good bit of detail, which will not be necessary as we respond much more briefly to the remainder of your questions.
pngrata wrote:2) How are you running for Governor when you claim the various original jurisdiction governments are empty? How would you run such an election with no Secretary of State or various state elections officials, as required by "original jurisdiction" (pre-1944) laws?
We are not running for governor. Team Law is an organization thus it could not possibly qualify. However, the man that ultimately lends consciousness and physical capacity to Team Law, under the limitations of his covenants as a Steward to the King of Kings, ran for office in the original jurisdiction Republic state Colorado and was elected by popular vote. He served for four years and was recognized as that governor in the Corp. State and Corp. U.S. courts, by Congress, by the Military and by the National Security Counsel. After serving in that office for a full four year term less one day, he retired from that seat to accept the lawful appointment as a Senator in the original jurisdiction United States of America Senate, where he still so serves to this day. We simply provide that information here to bring some sensibility to the question you presented. Though those events were critical turning points that showed a peaceful and lawful path to the solutions necessary to save our country and its Constitution from hanging by a thread. The fact that he did those things is irrelevant to your question. To help you discover your own answer to your second question we will point you to the WARN newsletter volume 1 issue 1 article Independence Day, which starts on page 16. Within that article you will find where Colorado formed a private corporation after the same pattern as Corp. U.S. under Colorado’s Title 24; then the officers of the actual government for Colorado (the Republic state) either vacated their seats or new officers for the Corp. State were seated and the old Republic State officers were simply not reseated in accord with Colorado’s original jurisdiction Constitution. The government was not abandoned, the new Corp. State took up the performance of the business needs of the government as if it was the government itself and the people simply did not notice; because they did not know the law. When Governor Madsen was elected to that seat the problem he had to figure out to get elected was exactly what your question asks, “how do you get elected when there are no government officials in office to hold the election? The answer was found by going back to the time when the first governor was elected in accord with the State’s Enabling Act. At that time there were also no State government officials to hold the election. Then they did have the territorial government in place but again it had no State authority to hold an election of State officials. We had to first let the people know what we were doing. That was accomplished by his traveling around the State holding meetings to announce both the necessity and the way we would do it. Originally the vote was held by the people with secret ballots, but there is no law that says a person has to keep their vote private so we showed that a person could timely (the State Constitution and laws set the time for the election) case their ballot so that it can be counted. That can be accomplished using the Corp. State’s Clerk and Recorder’s office just like the original electors used the territorial government’s recorders to record their first State election. Once that was done the Governor was elected by Electoral Vote after which we simply continued to follow the laws of the State to seat the new Governor. Again, all of that was well confirmed in the media, in law, in history and proven in the courts. We showed how it can be done successfully and have admonished others to do the same. They have and today people from over 39 States have seated original jurisdiction governors in their seats in accord with the local laws of their respective states.

Please take note: we are presenting these answers to you not as proofs, rather as responsive answers that should provide you food for thought that you can use to drive your own study, so that you can awaken to the law, our history and the necessity of following the law to save our country and Constitution from hanging by a thread. So far as we have seen, Team Law is the only organization that not only has answered the questions regarding what happened to put us in the situation we all find ourselves in today, but we are also the only organization that has shown a peaceful legal lawful solution that restores our country, our Constitution and our peace. The beauty of the solution is the only thing necessary to accomplish the task is the people must learn the law and apply it. The seats of government were vacated so we simply need to fill them in accord with the law.
pngrata wrote:3) Why do you think the IMF authorization act equals a quit-claim deed on Corp US, when its nothing of the sort? Heck, it's not even a contract with the IMF.
We do not understand your question. First, we have no idea what the “IMF authorization act” is; and that makes it impossible for us to understand why you would think that we think it equals a quitclaim deed. However, a quitclaim is an instrument that transfers claim to a thing from one person to some other person. The Bretton Woods Agreement gave Corp. U.S’. treasury to the International Monetary Fund as their “individual drawing account” (checking account); thus though it does not use the term ‘quitclaim deed’ there is virtually no difference between that grant and the effect of a quitclaim deed, so we imagine your inquiry is referring to a mix between the Bretton Woods Agreement and United States Code Title 22 § 286, which includes the codification of the Congressional Act where Congress granted the President of the United States the authority to accept membership for Corp. U.S. in the world bank system in exchange for his control over the governors and general managers of the same. (When we review the exchange it seems a reasonable one — to exchange ownership and access to a treasury that has the unlimited ability to generate Federal Reserve Notes (etc.) from nothing for control of the world bank system — doesn’t that seem a reasonable exchange, oh yes and the icing on that cake is all of the finances supporting the Axis will shift to support the Alliance until the end of WWII— but that is an entirely different story.)
pngrata wrote:4) Why do you think that, even if the supposed Corp US is now in foreign hands, that means the "original jurisdiction" government is empty? Corporate law is very clear that someone can be an officer of two corporations at the same time, even if such corporations have conflicting interests. All it means is that the officer's actions are open to scrutiny for potential failure to abide by their contractual obligations with each corporation. Plus, under the theory, the orig. juris. government must have authorized being able to sit in both the corporate and o.j. offices at the same time, so why couldn't that same authorization hold in perpetuity?
We agree with your premis; however, this final question is answered by looking again at the events in history. We have already addressed the players in our answer to your first question. So lets go straight to the critical events that took place next as they relate to your inquiry. We go back to 1871, with Corp. U.S. in place (holding the actual government under its management as a part of the Territory of the District of Columbia), accordingly all of the elected and appointed officials of the original jurisdiction government have offices of the same name and application in the Corp. U.S. corporate structure—that is to say, all officers of government wear two hats: one corporate and one original jurisdiction. With the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 Corp. U.S. has adopted what they call the United States Constitution as their constitution. It is identical to the Constitution of the United States of America except they dropped out the country’s 13th Article of Amendment and renumbered the country’s 14th, 15th and 16th amendments as their 13th, 14th and 15th amendments respectively. Corp. U.S. is charged (under martial law) with the responsibility of carrying out all of the government’s business needs. To do so they effectively form their own bank (treasury) and fund their expenses by floating bonds, etc. In 1912 their debts come due but they cannot pay. Three critical Acts are passed in 1913: the Federal Reserve Bank Act, the 16th Article for Amendment and the 17th Article for Amendment. Of these the only one relevant to your inquiry is the 17th. Rather than again going into all of the details as we have elsewhere, suffice it to say, here that the 16th and 17th articles for amendment were adopted into the Corp. U.S. constitution and have nothing to do with the Constitution of the United States of America. Delving into the effect of the 17th amendment to Corp. U.S.’ constitution, we see that they change where their corporate Senators get their offices from. From that amendment on they are elected by the popular vote of their registered corporate voters. The original jurisdiction Senators appointment process remains as it always was; they are appointed by the State Senate or by the respective State Governor in the event that the State Legislature is not then seated.

Thus, when the next class of Senators came up for appointment by the states they failed to appoint Senators but in Corp. U.S. their counterparts to the original jurisdiction Senate were seated, howbeit they had no original jurisdiction capacity to vote in the original jurisdiction Senate. Now most of the official acts of our government qualify as business needs and can be dealt with by Corp. U.S.; however, confirming the Electoral College election of the President of the United States of America is not a business need; rather it is an official act required to seat an elected President of the United States of America. And, when President Wilson was reelected for his second term in office the Corp. U.S. Senators were allowed to participate in that confirmation, which means all of the Senators were acting in their corporate only capacity in that confirmation (because no other possibility fits with the laws of our country), and President Wilson was not confirmed as our Republic’s President for a second term. The Constitution provides for such a situation wherein the President Pro Tempore of the Senate would automatically take the seat of President until such time as a new President would be reelected or until he received a confirming vote from the Senate (which requires a 2/3 majority of the States Senators votes, which thing has not happened between then and now). With the President gone it does not take long before all of the offices of government are vacated except the military (which continues in original jurisdiction to this day though it is bound to its lawful orders from its civilian head who is today George Bush).

The law provides for how such elections and appointments may proceed, but nothing mandates the people to perform what they may do if they choose to. Thus ignorance keeps the people from getting the job done, which again is why Team Law does what we do. It is also why we need your help.

Your inquiry alluded to the fact that an individual man can lend his personal consciousness and physical capacity to multiple offices in multiple corporations or other entities like Trusts, Partnerships and or Governments. We agree, but that was not the problem we face. The law and historical evidences show the seats of our original jurisdiction governments were vacated and the corporate entities that were created to handle their business needs continued to act as if they were the government when in fact they were simply entities that allowed those that were in power at the time to continue forward by their own necessities rather than by following our Law of the Land — our states and our country’s constitutions. To save ourselves from those corporations we must bring them back under government control, which can only be done by putting our governments (State and National) back in their seats. The only way to do that is by learning and following the law and telling everyone we know about it.

The key to telling them is not to tell them everything; just tell them to come and read our response to your inquiry. Don’t even try to explain it, just send them here where they can learn for themselves. We will be changing our home page quite a bit over the next couple of weeks as a result of the next step Corp. U.S. is involved in. There are several critical events in play right now. They started in mass with the events of September 11, 2001 (see the Terrorism in the U.S. link on Team Law’s website). That ushered in Homeland Security, the federal police authority to identify anyone they want and incarcerate without trial. The last step of dissolving the last vestiges of our Constitutional Republic would be accomplished if Corp. U.S. can inspire the people to revolt against Corp. U.S. We cannot allow that step because it would eliminate our ability to save our country with the laws of our Republic. Still, there is a gigantic push being made both by Corp. U.S. and by (knowing or unknowing) agent provocateurs. It is the greatest threat yet because the simple fact that the Aaron Russo’s new movie "Freedom to Fascism" is now out asking people to join together in “active resistance” against Corp. U.S., which sets the stage for the perfect opportunity for Corp. U.S. to even set up a mock rebellion and responsively bring in the troops and blockades of cities all over the country. Regardless of what happens we, The People, cannot participate in that aggression. We must rather learn the truth, our history and the law and then apply the law. Reseat the governors, the original jurisdiction Electoral College, and then our President of the United States of America in original jurisdiction. Only God or such a President has the lawful capacity to stop Corp. U.S. from destroying our country. We will soon post a response to the Aaron Russo film, which will show the fallacy of its allegations regarding IRS and the Federal Reserve Note system. That will be a good follow up to our responses made here to your inquiry.

Again, though we have repeatedly shared these answers in the materials we have provided as noted above, we welcome the opportunity to respond to them again here; and we hope our response is useful to you. We hope this response helps you realize not only the benefit in supporting Team Law and the work we stand for but the necessity of such support if we are to timely awaken our countrymen.

We wish you well and hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Last edited by Admin on Friday August 4th, 2006 11:42 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.

Pngrata
Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Friday July 28th, 2006 1:17 pm MDT

Re: BIG Questions on Corp. US theory

Postby Pngrata » Monday July 31st, 2006 12:30 pm MDT

Admin:
I suppose you are correct that Congress has never directly "ran" DC. Looking again it appears the Organic Act just set up the first elected government the district had. This is how it can also be a Organic/"First" Act (ignoring the fact that none of the previous acts used the word Charter either). It established a completely new government for DC. The old one was appointed by the President, this one was elected. And of course you can't ignore the word "municipal" so lightly. A municipal government is certainly not a general government over the whole United States. The very first DC Act established the existent laws of Maryland and Virginia as the laws for their respective portions of the District. Did that mean the whole country was subject to the laws of Maryland and Virginia? Of course not.
Admin wrote:To help you discover your own answer to your second question we will point you to the WARN newsletter volume 1 issue 1 article Independence Day, which starts on page 16. Within that article you will find where Colorado formed a private corporation after the same pattern as Corp. U.S. under Colorado’s Title 24.
The WARN letter says nothing about how he (Gov. Madsen) went about securing his election to be Governor of Colorado, only that he did. Thank you for the information you gave here, which is closer to an answer, but still doesn't explain it. The first elections for the governorship of Colorado were conducted and certified under the auspices of the Territorial Government - which of course no longer exists, and the authorization extended only to that first election. You can't replace the territorial authority with a Corp. US authority. I'd also like some cites to this supposed confirmation "in the media, in law, in history and proven in the courts." All I've seen are assertions that it happened, and was certified by the courts/congress/the military/the NSC, etc, but no direct citations to where they actually say what is said they said.
Admin wrote:We do not understand your question. First, we have no idea what the “IMF authorization act” is; and that makes it impossible for us to understand why you would think that we think it equals a quitclaim deed. However, a quitclaim is an instrument that transfers claim to a thing from one person to some other person.
WRONG. A quitclaim deed is a very specific kind of transfer. First, it only relates to land. Second, it transfers all rights, whatever they are, without specifying what they are, and with none of the guarantees that normally accompany a land transfer by Warranty Deed under the laws of the various states that there are no undisclosed encumbrances.
Admin wrote:The Bretton Woods Agreement gave Corp. U.S’. treasury to the International Monetary Fund as their “individual drawing account” (checking account); thus though it does not use the term ‘quitclaim deed’ there is virtually no difference between that grant and the effect of a quitclaim deed, so we imagine your inquiry is referring to a mix between the Bretton Woods Agreement and United States Code Title 22 § 286, which includes the codification of the Congressional Act where Congress granted the President of the United States the authority to accept membership for Corp. U.S. in the world bank system in exchange for his control over the governors and general managers of the same.
You are correct that I meant to refer to that mix of statutes. Secondly, it fails to meet all the definitions of a quitclaim deed. First, it doesn't deal with land. Secondly, nowhere does said act use the term "individual drawing account," instead it directs the Secretary of the Treasury to maintain the ratio of US investment in the IMF. That's a very different beast. It's not even a binding agreement, since as has been pointed out by you folks there wasn't a valid treaty signed by the president and passed by 2/3rds of the Senate. Instead, its just the congress acting as if the treaty had been passed under their normal powers - they can stop funding the IMF anytime without breaking a treaty. You can't simply declare a quitclaim deed no longer effective whenever you feel like it. If there is a Corp. US, which I very much doubt, it was not transferred to the IMF.

Imagine a bank gives you a personal checking account. Out of the goodness of their hearts they say they will continue to fund said account at a certain set rate into perpetuity, and you are free to draw that much anytime you like. But that they can revoke the account anytime they like. Does that mean you own the bank? No.
Admin wrote:We agree with your premise; however, this final question is answered by looking again at the events in history. We have already addressed the players in our answer to your first question. So lets go straight to the critical events that took place next as they relate to your inquiry. We go back to 1871, with Corp. U.S. in place (holding the actual government under its management as a part of the Territory of the District of Columbia), accordingly all of the elected and appointed officials of the original jurisdiction government have offices of the same name and application in the Corp. U.S. corporate structure—that is to say, all officers of government wear two hats: one corporate and one original jurisdiction. With the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 Corp. U.S. has adopted what they call the United States Constitution as their constitution. It is identical to the Constitution of the United States of America except they dropped out the country’s 13th Article of Amendment and renumbered the country’s 14th, 15th and 16th amendments as their 13th, 14th and 15th amendments respectively.
Where do you find all this info? As I read the entire DC Organic Act, it says nothing about "wearing two hats" or creating mirror positions, or adopting a "United States Constitution" (I suppose as opposed to the Constitution of the United States that DC council members are sworn to uphold) which mirrors the real one only knocking out the dubious 13th Amendment. In fact, the only officers it lists are the governor and council for DC. Does that mean the President, Cabinet, Congress, and Judiciary are all under the control of the Mayor of DC (the governors position was eliminated later and replaced with mayor of the unified DC)?
Admin wrote:Corp. U.S. is charged (under martial law) with the responsibility of carrying out all of the government’s business needs. To do so they effectively form their own bank (treasury) and fund their expenses by floating bonds, etc. In 1912 their debts come due but they cannot pay. Three critical Acts are passed in 1913: the Federal Reserve Bank Act, the 16th Article for Amendment and the 17th Article for Amendment. Of these the only one relevant to your inquiry is the 17th. Rather than again going into all of the details as we have elsewhere, suffice it to say, here that the 16th and 17th articles for amendment were adopted into the Corp. U.S. constitution and have nothing to do with the Constitution of the United States of America. Delving into the effect of the 17th amendment to Corp. U.S.’ constitution, we see that they change where their corporate Senators get their offices from. From that amendment on they are elected by the popular vote of their registered corporate voters. The original jurisdiction Senators appointment process remains as it always was; they are appointed by the State Senate or by the respective State Governor in the event that the State Legislature is not then seated.
Mmmm... why are just these two Acts of the Corp US just the Corp and not also acts of the o.j. government? Picking and choosing, aren't we? Notice the o.j. Senate hasn't been emptied yet when they're passed - by 2/3rds of each house and 3/4rs of the States. Why don't these ones count?

I feel I need to apologize for any caustic statements I made have made. I do not want to be insulting, I actually want to understand where you guys are coming from. It just looks so wrong to me that I have difficulty avoiding such language.

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

Re: BIG Questions on Corp. US theory

Postby Admin » Saturday August 5th, 2006 3:39 am MDT

:h: Pngrata:
First let us assure you: if we did not think your opinion was of value and worthy of clarifying or correcting we would not waste the time. Therefore, we hope the time necessary to respond to you on these matters is found valuable to you and to all others that might read these words. We also hope you will hereafter take the time to study out the truth for yourself rather than respond by supposition.

We appreciate the fact that this is all obviously new to you and that like the rest of us you don’t want to be in this situation, but given the precision necessary in the law, your imagined response simply does not fit either the facts or the law. For example, you responded:
pngrata wrote:I suppose you are correct that Congress has never directly "ran" DC. Looking again it appears the Organic Act just set up the first elected government the district had. This is how it can also be a Organic/"First" Act (ignoring the fact that none of the previous acts used the word Charter either). It established a completely new government for DC. The old one was appointed by the President, this one was elected.
We would appreciate it if rather than simply responding with your gut instincts you would instead take our challenge to learn the law and the history for yourself and not respond by imagination or supposition. Your response was obviously purely imagined by you having little or no foundation in either the facts or the law. We politely point this out because your failure to do the research is obvious and it causes us to have to focus time needlessly on points that had you done the research rather than simply responding by gut instinct you would have seen that your response neither fits the facts nor the necessity for precision in the law. We may not like what the law says or what the history is, the facts still remain what they are. To more clearly show our exact difficulty with your supposition let’s look at your response more closely. First, you responded by writing,
pngrata wrote:I suppose you are correct that Congress has never directly "ran" DC.
This is just your supposition. We have no complaint with it, we simply point out that your supposition was formed in exactly the same manner as the rest of your response. You did no research to confirm or prove wrong the point. You just “suppose”. We also point out the Constitution reserves the right of Congress to pass and enforce any law within the District, thus they can run the district, or not as they see fit. Your next ‘supposition’ starts out:
pngrata wrote:Looking again it appears the Organic Act just set up the first elected government the district had.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the District of Columbia government’s existence. It is also incorrect. As we just noted: “the Constitution reserves the right of Congress to pass and enforce any law within the District, thus they can run the district, or not as they see fit”; therefore, they govern the District of Columbia; and one of the bodies that comprise Congress, the House of Representatives, is full of elected officials. The President of the United States of America was appointed by Congress as the first civic official of the District—that having been done as a matter of law comprised that responsibility to that elected official office; thus, the first government official in the government of the District of Columbia was the President himself. The local city officials throughout the District have also always been elected in accord with their local laws. Beyond those facts elected officials of the District are irrelevant to the fact of the District of Columbia’s government’s existence.
pngrata wrote:This is how it can also be a Organic/"First" Act (ignoring the fact that none of the previous acts used the word Charter either).
Using the English language and the well established terms of law, that statement makes no sense at all! The local District of Columbia’s existence is the key behind the Act’s “organic” nature. When the word “Organic” is used in such an act it simply means, “First Act”; its use or lack of use in prior acts is irrelevant. When the word is used it simply cannot apply to something like whether or not the officials were elected or appointed (unless it is so redefined) — the word regards only the existence of the thing enacted. Your supposition to the contrary makes reason stare! Still, your unfounded supposition points at its own major flaw.
pngrata wrote:It established a completely new government for DC.
Thus it could not possibly have been an “Organic Act”. The official government of the District of Columbia was without question formally formed in the two 1801 District of Columbia Acts and it has not, to this day, been removed by any amendment or act of law. Further, your supposition alleges:
pngrata wrote:The old one was appointed by the President, this one was elected.
The officers of the District of Columbia’s government have never been appointed by the President of the United States of America other than the District Judges, which requirement is a matter of constitutional law. According to the District’s Charter Act and its Supplemental Act those district judges appoint the Marshals who comprise the respective County Commissions and they, according to their needs, appoint such other officers or officials within the districts as were deemed necessary; the local officials of the cities within them have always been elected in accord with the their local laws. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 speaks for itself to prove that Congress had no intent of replacing the existent government with a different form of government (elected or not), which the law requires if that were to have happened. This is our point exactly. The district’s government already existed as a well established municipal incorporation and was as such well recognized in all factions of law and government for 70 years before Corp. U.S. was created. Those are the simple facts and no amount of supposition or imagination can change either the facts or the necessities of the law.

Your response then makes a logical leap we simply cannot follow:
pngrata wrote:you can't ignore the word "municipal" so lightly. A municipal government is certainly not a general government over the whole United States.
We are stumped by that one. First, we know of no place wherein we ever ignored the word. We actually addressed the term showing that, given the facts of history and law, it cannot as used to refer to creating for the first time that which already existed. Therefore, the only use of the term remaining in the English language is one of possession. We simply point out that we are using the English language here so where the terms used were not otherwise redefined, it can only mean an incorporation possessed by the currently existent municipality, which is directly controlled by Congress (according to the Constitution). And Second, where you got the idea that there was any inference to a general government over the whole of the country is beyond us. Perhaps you were relating to the fact that in the United States Code Corp. U.S. repeatedly redefines the term “United States” as referring to merely the ten mile square of the District of Columbia (with or without its chattel possessions). With the lack of understanding of terms of law otherwise noted from your response we doubt that was your meaning but if it was then your comment becomes even more confusing because it seems to be self contradicting. If you were contesting Corp. U.S.’ apparent control over the whole country, then you are simply not paying any attention to the private contractual relations that virtually everyone and every business relation in the country makes with Corp. U.S. Those private contractual relations have nothing to do with the powers of governance in government; they have everything to do with their own terms of agreement as they are privately and voluntarily made with Corp. U.S.

You stated:
pngrata wrote:The very first DC Act established the existent laws of Maryland and Virginia as the laws for their respective portions of the District.
Actually the very first District of Columbia Act was the Act of July 16, 1790 at Chapter 28, wherein the District was made the permanent home of the country’s government and the President was put in charge over its acquisition and construction. The Second District of Columbia Acts set the government and laws of the District in place respectively patterning the laws in similitude of the laws in the states from whence the District was originally derived. You asked:
pngrata wrote:Did that mean the whole country was subject to the laws of Maryland and Virginia?
Obviously, the District of Columbia Acts did not to say Maryland and Virginia maintained control over the laws within the District, rather instead of Congress sitting down and hammering out new codes for the local municipalities and then training new officials, they simply adopted the local laws as they were already constituted, thus eliminating any need for such legislation or retraining of the officials at the city and county levels. The main effect was the criminal enforcement necessity in a civilized government was maintained through the transition from State to Federal District. Within a month it already became apparent that the Counties constituted in that last mentioned Act needed a more substantial body of government such that it could operate autonomously from Congress while remaining under congressional control; thus the Third District of Columbia Act was passed and the County Commissioners were formed with authority to pattern the local County governments within the District of Columbia after the respective pattern of Maryland and Virginia as they were then constituted within those respective States. Again, this did not give those respective States authority of law over either of the counties in the District, rather the codes were adopted in the district as they were then constituted and the District Judges were granted by Congress the authority to seat whatever officials as they saw fit for the District. That is simply what Congress did to formally incorporate the municipal governments within the District and as a result of those two very simple Acts they had completed the incorporation of all of the municipal governments necessary at the three levels of government they so formed; that being City, County and District. Though they so patterned their local laws after the respective States they made it plain that those laws adopted by those Acts, were the laws constituted in the District of Columbia — they were not the States’ laws and the respective States had no authority or control over the laws within the District. We hope this response helps you understand what happened a bit better. Please remember all we are saying in these matters is: “The facts and law speak for themselves.” They are not subject to supposition of interpretation from a reverse historical review of what we would like to have happened. History and the law are understood by studying them from the past with the Standard for Review moving from the past to the events as they happened with little regard for what happens in the future until it is part of history. By studying History we can hope to avoid making the same mistakes over and over again. Interestingly enough, when you understand these events, as they happened, they clearly explain what we see going on in our country today and it is easy to then see the logical progression of what is actually happening now; and how we can fix it. Without this understanding the only explanation is the courts and the governments have run amuck, displaced the Constitution and are now operating in treason against the people. We put the case that, though that is exactly what the conspiracy theorists allege, the truth is far simpler and the country and our Constitution can be saved by simply discovering the truth, learning our actual history and our law, lawfully reseat our original jurisdiction government and so save our country and our Constitution from hanging by a thread. Focusing on the alternatives simply serves no beneficial purpose.

Regarding your second topic, you responded to our reply and in relevant part sort of antagonistically inquired after more information regarding the election, howbeit without asking a question. Nonetheless, we assumed your response implied a request for an answer:
pngrata wrote:Thank you for the information you gave here, which is closer to an answer, but still doesn't explain it. The first elections for the governorship of Colorado were conducted and certified under the auspices of the Territorial Government - which of course no longer exists, and the authorization extended only to that first election.
We thought that information was clear in our last response but let’s clarify it a bit here. The authority of the People to form a government is not derived from the United States Government, not even through the State’s Enabling Act. The authority of the people to form governments comes from their individual sovereign will and agency, which as a matter of law, comes from God to man directly. The People in the United States of America granted that will and formed the Constitution for the United States of America, which created our Constitutional Republic form of government. The people reserved the right to choose any form of government they desire. With that in mind we then look to the State’s Enabling Act. It starts off recognizing that very authority in the inhabitants within the territory of Colorado and then authorizes them “to form for themselves, out of said territory, a state government … which state, when formed, shall be admitted into the Union”. Thus, the people have the inherent sovereign ability to form the government for themselves and they were authorized to form a State in the Union of States out of the United States Territory by an Act of Congress signed by the President. Next the Act provided that the people qualified by law to vote for representatives in the territory’s general assembly when the Enabling Act was passed were authorized to form a convention for the formation of a State Legislature and a State Constitution that would form the Stat’s government. Then came the election of the government officials. As we stated in our previous reply, those elections took place under the Peoples’ natural sovereign right to choose their own form of government. The privilege of forming such a government in accord with said Enabling Act was so authorized by Congress and that government was formed with its Constitution. The first gubernatorial election took place shortly thereafter. Though the existing territorial government provided its infrastructure to assist in that election, the election was not the territories election and the election was not a matter of federal authorization. The Enabling Act’s authorization to form a State in the Union of States fully recognized that it was the peoples’ election not the Territory’s or the Union’s. The time of the election was set by that convention and remains a matter of State law. The manner of the election was also set, by individual vote of the people. The problem remains that in the situation where the offices of the original jurisdiction government were vacated and no election was being held leaves the people with the dilemma of how to cast their votes in such a situation. The remedy is quite clear. In Colorado, the election records are collected by state officials through the Clerk and Recorder’s office. We simply hand carried our votes there and made them public, because there was no other way to accomplish the task with no officers in office to manage the peoples’ election. Thus the people carried out the election in accord with their own authority as a matter of their constitutionally protected right.
pngrata wrote:You can't replace the territorial authority with a Corp. US authority.
We don’t understand your allegation of such a replacement. No such thing was even suggested. Further, the territory never had authority to hold such an election even though it was used to assist with the logistics of the State’s first election.

As to your desire to see some conformations with citations regarding Gov. Madsen’s election; such citations are irrelevant. We have addressed this matter repeatedly in the past; there is no point in our attempting to convince anyone of anything, rather it is important for you to discover for yourself what the law is so that you can understand what must be done in your own State. The only thing that can be done to save our country is, we must discover what has happened and what our law is so that we can both control Corp. U.S. and reseat our original jurisdiction government. To do that, you cannot rely on either Mr. Madsen’s knowledge or on what Mr. Madsen did, whether you believe it or not. It is not our responsibility to convince you. You must do your own research to learn what you can do in your State. The court cases where these matters were addressed were not appealed, so there are no citations to give and the determinations of Congress and the NSC are just as irrelevant to your discovering what you must do in your State. This is not a matter of testimonials and that is not why we tell what we went through along the way. We tell the story merely because it is what happened, but even if it didn’t happen that would change nothing about what must be done. This cannot be turned into a thing where anyone’s actions or lack of the same are the reason why people take action to learn the truth, rather it must continue to be a thing where people awaken themselves and begin to study our history and our law so that they can apply it and we can preserve our country and our Constitution.
pngrata wrote:WRONG. A quitclaim deed is a very specific kind of transfer. First, it only relates to land. Second, it transfers all rights, whatever they are, without specifying what they are
We have to quote your response on that one — WRONG.Quoting Webster:
At webster-dictionary.net, Webster wrote:Deed: (Law) A sealed instrument in writing, on paper or parchment, duly executed and delivered, containing some transfer, bargain, or contract.
Thus deeds can be had for any kind of property not limited to Land or real estate. Further, a quitclaim is also contractual matter used for any type of title to any kind of property and is not limited to land and or real estate.
At webster-dictionary.net, Webster wrote:Quitclaim: (Law) A release or relinquishment of a claim; a deed of release; an instrument by which some right, title, interest, or claim, which one person has, or is supposed to have, in or to an estate held by himself or another, is released or relinquished, the grantor generally covenanting only against persons who claim under himself.
We do not hold that the Bretton Woods Agreement was an actual Deed, rather that it contained within it the equivalent of such a Deed when it gave to the IMF the authority to use and control Corp. U.S.’ treasury.
pngrata wrote:Nowhere does said act use the term "individual drawing account," instead it directs the Secretary of the Treasury to maintain the ratio of US investment in the IMF.
We never alleged that the Act from which Title 22 springs used that term. In fact we stated that the Bretton Woods Agreement was where Corp. U.S.’ treasury was offered in exchange for the Corp. U.S. President controlling the governors and general managers of the world banking system. That was done and it continues to this day.
pngrata wrote:It's not even a binding agreement.
Its name is the Bretton Woods Agreement, the participants would surely be interested in such an opinion if it had any effect on history. There is no question in fact, law or history as to the validity of the Bretton Woods Agreement; it is the very foundation of the world banking system and of the United Nations creation. Again, we would suggest a refresher course in the Agreement. As to your allegation:
pngrata wrote:since as has been pointed out by you folks there wasn't a valid treaty signed by the president and passed by 2/3rds of the Senate.
We are unaware of any such allegation from us that it was not valid. The fact that it was made between Corp. U.S. (a private corporation) negates the treaty element of it but that does not remove its validity as an agreement. Your next logical leap does a reverse from the facts:
pngrata wrote:they can stop funding the IMF anytime without breaking a treaty.
Having already addressed the treaty element we will let that go, but the allegation that Corp. U.S. funds the IMF would certainly be news to them. They are the so called lending source for most of the so called funding that goes on for Corp. U.S. Corp. U.S. does not fund them, rather they fund Corp. U.S. and Corp. U.S. has little choice in the matter today where their alleged debt to the IMF runs in the Trillions of dollars. It comprises the bulk of the so called national debt. We have seen many returned checks from payments made to IRS, all stamped with an IMF cancellation on the back of the check, but that opens a whole new can of worms we would rather not jump into in this topical thread.
pngrata wrote:As I read the entire DC Organic Act, it says nothing about "wearing two hats" or creating mirror positions, or adopting a "United States Constitution" … In fact, the only officers it lists are the governor and council for DC. Does that mean the President, Cabinet, Congress, and Judiciary are all under the control of the Mayor of DC
We would not expect such things were written that way in the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871. The original jurisdiction congressional intent was to create a means whereby they could accomplish the things they needed to but could not do to resolve the problems they faced at the end of the Civil War. They certainly would not advertise what they were doing. They accomplished their task by simply creating what appeared to be a municipal government. For the most part that is exactly how the Act reads. A cursory review of the Act makes anyone not well versed in law and in our history see just the apparent body of government; however, it also recognizes that Congress has complete authority to do whatever they want with complete control over the entity they created, the figurehead officers created in it notwithstanding. It also places control over the actual municipal government under the new private corporation of the same name and provides official seats for that control in place. Thus when Congress continued through that authority acting and did things that would have otherwise been treasonous they were covered by their new private corporate shield, thus it is obvious that they were acting through the title of their official congressional seats but so doing what only the private corporation could lawfully do, thus they were wearing a corporate official hat using their governmental authority’s title. Such activity did not even exemplify a conflict in interest until 1917. The Act plainly says they adopted the laws of the United States and they plainly began publishing their Constitution without the country’s 13th amendment. Again, those facts are simple history.
pngrata wrote:which mirrors the real one only knocking out the dubious 13th Amendment.
We have elsewhere addressed the 13th amendment repeatedly and are not going to do that again here. We simply suggest, if you really think it is “dubious” perhaps you should research its history a bit. If you do, with any sincerity you will prove that fact for yourself as well. Again it is not our job to do your work for you.

Referring to the 16th and 17th amendments you state:
pngrata wrote:Why are just these two Acts of the Corp US just the Corp and not also acts of the o.j. government?
As with most of the rest of the questions you asked in your inquiries, these questions have been repeatedly responded to in our Open Forum responses, but for clarity we will address these one more time. The country’s Constitution already had 16 articles of amendment by 1870; thus, passing an new 16th amendment in 1913 could not possibly be our country’s Constitution being amended. Neither the 16th nor the 17th amendments in question here were properly ratified if they had been our country’s Constitution’s amendments. And, finally the Constitution itself forbids Congress from even discussing the matter of where Senators will be elected, which is the subject of Corp. U.S.’ 17th amendment. Thus if Congress had wanted to pass such an amendment they would first have to amended the Constitution to grant them the authority to discuss the matter. It is a simple matter of law that neither of those two amendments could possibly be amendments to our country’s Constitution.

We hope your inquiry is an honorable one and that our effort put into responding to your message was not a waste of time. Accordingly we hope this information is helpful to you. We especially hope you will continue to research the truth and study our history from the past to the future rather than from a preconceived mindset born in the future trying to justify the past. History and law only reveal their secrets if you apply yourself and allow them to speak to you from their own right. God bless you in your righteous endeavors. :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 “Elections”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest