Psholtz & Gabo:
In this topical thread we notice a common exchange we have witnessed around the country. It typically comes from the habitual experience most people have when they serve in more than one capacity and yet see all of their actions, whether served in other capacities or not, as their own. This is a common error people experience and in business it causes them significant risks. Wise service in business capacities requires a separation from the lender and the worker. We described the nature of the contractually created consciousness (corporation sole) in our Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole
article. What must be understood and securely implanted in our awareness is the difference between the man (with his natural consciousness) and the business entity with its contractually created capacity to make decisions and function (corporation sole). The example we gave regarding the corporation sole is the Trust, with its Trustee capacity (a corporation sole). The Trustee being a capacity created in contract, has no natural (created in nature) capacity to function and in its construct it has no capacity to act for itself; the only capacity it has is to act for the Trust; thus, when the Trustee acts it is the Trust that is acting, not the Trustee itself (for its self) and not the person that lends it consciousness and physical capacity. This is the most important concept that must be understood before one can effectively understand how to resolve the controversy expressed in this topical thread.
That said, let’s look at the first comment in the thread:
psholtz wrote: So contracts between two corporations (Corp US and Fed Reserve) are all well and good, but if an official of the government places his right hand on a Bible and swears an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic", and then he proceeds to do precisely the opposite, isn't he still committing treason? Or at least some type of fraud?
The answer to the question is obvious, if an officer of the government did that, such an action would at least be a violation of that oath and would disqualify that officer from the office; whether tact was fraudulent or treasonous would depend on the specific nature of the unspecified act; but that is not the actual point of the question or the situation at hand. The problem with the question is in its presuppositions. The question presupposes “an official of the government” has done or could do that, when in fact we are aware of no such thing happening. There have been virtually no officials of government acting in that capacity since 1917. And between 1871 (Corp. U.S. creation) and 1917 (President Wilson accepting office in Corp. U.S. with no Senate confirmation of his reelection as the original jurisdiction President of the United States of America), the officers of our original jurisdiction government that sat in their seats sat also in the seats of the private corporate Corp. U.S. At that time there was no conflict of interest between Corp. U.S. and the original jurisdiction government of the United States of America. Thus, there was no need for those actual officers of the original jurisdiction government to act contrary to their oaths of office in either their original jurisdiction capacity or in their official capacity with Corp. U.S. In other words, at that time there was no appearance of a conflict of interest. Since that time, Corp. U.S. officers have held no office in the original jurisdiction government. They have their own constitution, which they take their oaths in relation to. Though, the words of their constitution are almost identical to our nation’s Constitution of the United States of America, their constitution has little or no relation to the Constitution of our original jurisdiction government. We must also understand the purpose behind the creation of Corp. U.S. was to carry out the business needs of the original jurisdiction government, which business needs have become convoluted into the necessity of Corp. U.S. covering its own obligations to do the same under their bankruptcy. To do that they resolved to settle WWII with the Bretton Woods Agreement, which effectively transferred their ownership, thus requiring them to both serve their original function and their new owner, the International Monetary Fund. That, among other things gave them a gigantic conflict of interest between their original function and their present situation of necessity. Of course the problem is gigantically enhanced by time and the ignorance of the people serving in those offices; who in all likelihood, have no idea that they are not actually original jurisdiction government officials.
We expect that is what Gabo meant with his response. Then,
psholtz wrote:So therefore there's no obligation or compulsion on the part of these "elected" officials to take any oaths or voluntarily contract themselves into abiding by these oaths to serve the original jurisdiction seats. And yet, that's precisely what they do.
However, that is not what they do at all. The take no oaths to the original jurisdiction government. They have no relation to the original jurisdiction government. In all likelihood, today, they are not even people serving in those capacities; rather they are agencies of Corp. U.S. who were originally created by the Social Security Administration with their respective names and Taxpayer Identification Numbers.
One could argue the point that they were not actually aware of their Corp. U.S. capacities or even of the existence of Corp. U.S. for that matter and thus go back to the original argument presented in the first question presented in this topical thread. The problems with that argument is it first ignores the facts and second it ignores the nature of what happens when people are elected or appointed either to original jurisdiction government offices or into Corp. U.S. official offices. What happens when such officers fist come into their respective offices is they are overwhelmed by the gigantic necessities of the office. There is no “school” or place where they can go to learn what the office entails. They simple come to grips with the office from the personnel already in place to serve them there. And, where did those people learn the job? From those that came before them. Thus is the environment of the dilemma. To fail to recognize this is to ignore the intent of the ones the question focuses its allegation of treason or fraud. If we look to the crime of Treason, it cannot be accomplished without intent, and there is no intent is such people swamped into their official capacities. If we look to fraud, though a person can be responsible for fraud even in their ignorance, they are not responsible for the situation that put them involved in the fraud and can have no criminal intent in such when they are ignorant of it. Thus, there is no fraud, deception or breach of contract taking place that anyone can prove any criminal intent regarding these matters (that obviously does not include willful acts of the nature involved in causing or covering up events like those that made September 11, 2001 infamous)
We are left with the facts alone that well describe the situation we find ourselves in and the remedy that restores our original jurisdiction government. We expect that is exactly why Gabo responded as he did. Psholtz’s response focused on the accidental damage or destruction of the original thing protected by oath and the responsibilities to that destruction that are obviously implied by that original oath, bringing it back to the Constitutional question:
psholtz wrote:If you take an oath to "uphold + protect the Constitution, and protect it against all enemies foreign and domestic", then it would seem to me your first order of business would be to a) quiesce and wind-down the Corp US; and b) restore and reseat the original Constitutional government.
The obvious response is, “Which constitution?” Corp. U.S. has its own constitution and its purpose has significantly changed. Actions that would be directly against the Constitution of the United States of America and would obviously make their perpetrators enemies are innocent acts of Corp. U.S. officers carrying out their duties and responsibilities. Further, if such officers are ignorant of the facts and believe they are officers of the original jurisdiction government, it is impossible for them to either quiet and wind down Corp. U.S. or restore and reseat the original jurisdiction government.
So far as the so called, “our "elected" officials” go, we have no such officials today other than the original jurisdiction governors Team Law has helped the people elect and reseat. The Corp. U.S. official certainly do not qualify as “our” officials. We do not even participate in such shams as the “Vote Scam” system of elections for governance officials in practice in Corp. U.S. Those elections are the result of preprogrammed computer generations. We have no idea who the “our” refers to in the “our officials” today but we are certain that they are more akin to the controllers of the election computers than to the people of our country. We are simply amazed that the people tolerate computer controlled voting systems at all.
Generally, we expect officials elected in that system have their loyalties to that system and to little else. Isn’t that what is expected? We would not expect them to “serve two masters”. They seem to be serving their own master and that is not treason, it is doing their job, under the circumstances. It is prohibited neither by their constitution nor by ours.
It is more like the people of our country chose to manage the affairs by contractual relations with the private foreign corporation that has taken control over the responsibilities to govern our country. That was done because of the combined ignorance of our people and of our officials in government. Today we find ourselves being so governed instead of governing our selves. This took place over generations of time and at the cause of no individual’s fault, fraud or treason. Thus, no witch-hunt is necessary. We must simply learn what is going on and get the job of reseating our original jurisdiction government done.
The bottom line: that means we need to learn our history and our law and we must put our
officials back into our
original jurisdiction government. Forget about who did what to whom, and get the work done of spreading the word. Perhaps by something so simple as sending people to Team Law’s website
. Then secure your rights to your Land and participate in the election of your original jurisdiction State governor.
We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law!