:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

On Sunday (September 10, 2017, at: 5:00 pm Mountain Time) Pastor Butch Paugh, (of: GCN Radio Network’s: “Call to Decision” radio show) interviewed Team Law’s Trustee. We will publish that interview on our Online Audio page once it goes through editing to remove the commercial breaks.

We hold a Free Conference Call every: Monday, Wednesday & Friday morning from:
8:00 – 9:00 AM (Mountain Time).

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

Join us on, and invite your friends to, our next Conference Call!

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;
use this link for more: contact information.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:

After reading this announcement, you may remove it by clicking the “X” in the upper right corner of the announcement's green background.

Questioning Ed Griffin's Analysis

The forum is for discussing the myths found on the Team Law website's Patriot Mythology page.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Samuel Howell, Jr.
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 17
Joined: Saturday November 10th, 2007 8:26 pm MST

Questioning Ed Griffin's Analysis

Postby Samuel Howell, Jr. » Thursday June 5th, 2008 3:44 pm MDT

Dear Admin,
I am not sure if you had seen this or not. While telling some friends about Team Law we got talking about Ed Griffin. I directed them to Myth #22. In response they directed me to an Analysis by Ed Griffin of the topic, IS THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT A CORPORATION? IF TRUE, SO WHAT?.

Having listened to the interview from First Amendment Radio that is found at the Meetings and Events link, I was surprised to read what Mr. Griffin had to say.

Waking up the people is proving to be very difficult if they are already a part of a/the "movement." I hate to think that Mr. Griffin is playing the part of agent provocateur.

Needless to say, my friends refuse to follow anyone other than Griffin and his fellow Patriots.
For Liberty, Samuel Howell, Jr.
“In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.”

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

Re: Questioning Ed Griffin's Analysis

Postby Admin » Thursday June 5th, 2008 3:49 pm MDT

:h: Samuel Howell, Jr.:
From your post, we see an implied request for a review of Ed Griffin’s Assessment of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 with an implied question, “Has Mr. Griffin become trapped, playing the part of agent provocateur?”

In response, we need to address two things regarding your inquiry:
  1. It is not our function to critique other author’s opinions. So far as we are concerned, though we do care about people and their opinions, such third party opinions should be of little importance to anyone. In fact, when people follow such opinions without doing their own research, they often find themselves led astray, powerless to correct their errant path. Thus, we avoid critiquing others work unless such a critique becomes necessary because of the effect of that author’s work is drawing too many people away from the truth. Still, our purpose is to inspire people to do their own research and accordingly to help them educate themselves. Such an education makes it possible for you to know the errors and omissions of any presenter’s written word, regardless of how famous or valued their opinions are generally perceived.
  2. Your post referred us to Ed Griffin’s comments about the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 as if his comments surprised you and as if such comments have caused your friends to misunderstand the topic accordingly, because they follow what he says. We find inherent danger in anyone following any author’s opinions rather than studying the facts and law for themselves—that is exactly how we got into the situation we find ourselves in today—people following others instead of learning the truth for themselves.

    Wherefore, because we already debunked the errant theories Ed Griffin expressed in the article you referred to, in this second part of our response we direct you to our Open Forum’s Search function, which allows you to investigate our forums presentation on any particular topic one may be interested in. The Search function is found at the top right of the Open Forum page.
To use this case as an example, we turn to Ed Griffin’s article and find:
In the article entitled, IS THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT A CORPORATION? IF TRUE, SO WHAT? Ed Griffin wrote:A common assertion made by those who are unhappy with the declining state of freedom in America is that this can be traced to an 1871 act of Congress that established Washington DC and, at the same time, converted the United States from a constitutional republic to a corporation.
Notice the language pattern Ed used in this opening statement eloquently refers to an assertion some unhappy parties make; Ed even references an internet source where such an opinion can be found. Ed’s statement makes no comment regarding the accuracy or inaccuracy of the statement; however, Ed’s language pattern ties several presuppositions together but actually only states that there are parties with the opinion he expressed. The link provided confirms others have the opinion Ed expressed.

We note that the assertion referred to implies the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 “converted the United States from a constitutional republic to a corporation”, which assertion is certainly false; the law makes it clear no such conversion ever took place. Still, said act does form a new corporation known as the “District of Columbia”. Thus the question is, what is this new corporation? Whatever it is it is not our government. The Act plainly does not remove or otherwise change the actual government itself. Of course this can be discovered only by studying the Act itself while following the Standard for Review. Ed continues:
Continuing in said article Ed Griffin wrote:Secondary claims attached to this hypothesis are that this is the reason the official wording was changed from Constitution for The United States of America to Constitution of The United States of America and also why all capital letters are used in the name instead of upper and lower case letters. They claim that this Act of 1871 abolished the original constitutional government and created a legal fiction that became financially indebted to and controlled by international bankers.
A simple review of the historical facts will show all such allegations are false. Of course, this is also simply an observation Ed expresses; yet, at this point, Ed expresses no opinion as to the inaccuracy of such claims. Ed then expresses his own opinion:
Continuing in said article, Ed Griffin wrote:A CHARTER FOR CITY GOVERNMENT
My own analysis is different. While it is true that Washington DC was created by the Act of 1871, its territory was limited to the District of Columbia and it was defined as a municipal corporation, which means it was limited to the affairs of city government. Three years later, on June 20, 1874, a new Act was passed by Congress that abolished the original city government and replaced it with a three-man commission, appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate. Its scope as a municipality did not change. A third Act of Congress, dated June 11, 1878, clarified the powers of the Commission but retained all the essential features of the previous Act, especially those that defined the nature of the District of Columbia as a municipal administrative unit. The following overview, taken from a Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia v. Camden Iron Works, 181 U.S. 453 (1901) 181 U.S. 453) describes this evolution:
Though we appreciate the fact that it appears Ed at least read the Act before he made his observation, he obviously fails to understand the Act; we expect because he is trying to understand it by looking at it from now (instead of following the Standard for Review to secure a proper understanding, in light of the history of the matters related in the Act). In fact, it appears Ed may have acquired his opinion from some source other than history or the Act itself. We imagine that because Ed starts his analysis by expressing his opinion, “that Washington DC was created by the Act of 1871”, which is false. There are two separate elemental jurisdictions implied in the term, “Washington, DC”; they are:
  1. Washington, the city;
    • Washington planned for a city on 6,000 acres in the center of the District (London was about that size with a population of 300,000);
    • On, September 9, 1791, at the time of its official formation, the city was named in honor of George Washington, who was also commissioned to pick the site for the city and to arrange for its design and construction; and,
  2. D.C., or more correctly, the “District of Columbia”
    • 100 square miles in size when it was chartered;
    • Included within its boundary were two counties and several cities, not the least of which were, Georgetown, Washington and Alexandria.
    In Re: BIG Questions on Corp. US theory Admin wrote: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.
Thus, history shows the city and separately the district were created at least 70 years before the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871. Even the Supreme Court acknowledged this fact (the 1801 incorporation of the District of Columbia) repeatedly; but, we are not going to go into all of that again here because we still contend, it is not enough for people to read of such things from third party resources like us. We simply want to inspire people to do their own research and educate themselves. This response should be enough to show the error in Ed’s analysis. The last part of the last quote we referred to from Ed presents a Supreme Court case as if it refutes this fact somehow; however, that case does not refute the fact that the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 formed a private corporation. Again, we already addressed that fact in our response to another quest so rather than address that again here let’s instead show you how to better use our Open Forum system.

If we wanted to know if Team Law had said anything about the topic, we would enter the words, “District Columbia Organic Act” (we left out “of”, it returns too many highlights) in the Team Law Open Forum search window at the top right hand side of our Open Forum’s page. The results of that search would direct us to at least 30 references where that phrase was used. Among those, the most relevant topics may seem to be the following: Re: Larry Becraft quote on Act of 1871 and Re: BIG Questions on Corp. US theory. A review of those articles will certainly help a person unravel the comments made by Ed Griffin. That first link refers to a quote on the matter from the attorney Larry Becraft. In fact, he is the very person that convinced Ed Griffin to change his opinion regarding the nature of Corp. U.S. (Ed agreed with us before Becraft got to him). Further review of Ed Griffin’s article shows, he even quotes the comment we referred to in our link to Larry Becraft’s comment on the subject. However, that post is on our Beneficiary Forum, so if you are not a Team Law beneficiary you will not be able to access that one. The next relevant link (noted above) takes you to an article that is directly on-point to the subject at hand, we even quoted from it (above in the reference to the district). The search also comes up with the response to the Supreme Court case similar to the one Ed cited, which shows neither of those cases refute the facts as we have presented them: Happened upon this Supreme Court decision...

We agree with Ed’s assessment regarding all capital letters in that such spelling is not definitive of a corporate nature.

The balance of Ed’s review of the matter goes back to the presuppositions he presented at the beginning of his analysis, which exemplifies the danger in making such presuppositions. Because Ed made the presupposition that the formation of a private corporation automatically means that corporation supersedes our original jurisdiction government, he focuses his analysis on that bogus presupposition and forgets to analyze the effect of the actual government forming a private corporation through which they could operate to take care of their business needs (especially under the effect of martial law). Without such a review (following the Standard for Review), there is no way to accurately understand what is going on today.

It is kind of like Ed writing his book on the Creature from Jekyll Island without noticing either the actual nature of Corp. U.S. or the fact that the Federal Reserve Notes the book is about are rented into circulation not borrowed at their face value as if they were money. Missing those key elements makes such a book into an interesting historical novel, but nothing more.

Ed finally gets to the bottom line in his analysis:
Continuing in said article Ed Griffin wrote:WHAT CAN BE DONE?The important question is what can be done? Even if it were true that the United States was secretly converted to a corporation in 1871, what can be done about it today? If we don’t have an answer to that question, we are wasting out time.
We agree, that is why Team Law works to help people educate themselves, without which education, there is no way to win our country back and insure that it is never lost again.
Continuing in said article Ed Griffin wrote:The solution to the loss of our constitutional republic is, not to endlessly debate the meaning of an obscure event in 1871, but to take action today to recapture our government from the collectivists who have subverted it and then set about to restore the republic!
Again we agree; but, we do not entirely agree on method, to address that we again point you to Myth 22 on Team Law’s website. Ed then ends his analysis with a quote from an e-mail message:
Continuing in said article Ed Griffin wrote:You said, “the freedom community needs to accept the truth and facts and create a plan of action based on reality.” I agree totally; but what would that plan be? How would it be any different than abolishing the Federal Reserve and the IRS, returning to a sound money, and replacing corrupted government officials? If that is the solution, then why spend time in a legal wonderland that not one in ten-thousand has any chance of comprehending? Is there any better plan to turn people off of the topic and, thus, turn them away from a solution? It seems to me that crusading under the Strawman banner is well calculated to insure our defeat. Why not just stick with the easily understood and easily proven facts? That’s what Ron Paul is trying to do and, judging by the groundswell of support he is getting, it is a very wise strategy.
Generally we agree with Ed’s entire wrap up of his analysis. In fact, we have repeatedly stated that the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 and its effects are irrelevant to the situation we all face today. We also debunked the entire bogus contention of the Strawman on the Patriot Mythology page of our website. Still, the remedies Ed has so far promoted, though well intended, have not the capacity to restore our nation. Even the Ron Paul ticket won’t get the job done; especially now that he lost his bid for the Republican ticket in the general election. And, none of that changes the facts of where we are or what must be done. To that end, again Ed stated the situation correctly,
’If we don’t have an answer to that question, we are wasting our time!’
Further, he (as with his associates) has not provided an answer to that question.
In fact, the only place we have seen such an answer is the work Team Law is doing. We have successfully demonstrated that our original jurisdiction government can be reseated. We are in fact reseating it in accord with law. Each year we move consistently closer to getting the job done.

The answer and solution is actually quite simple, it requires no resolution of whether or not anyone agrees with our understanding of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871. The answer is simple, we have to take our nation back, legally and lawfully.

The answer requires that we must acknowledge the following:
  1. I must each educate myself;
  2. I must learn what remedies are available to me; and,
  3. I must timely execute the applicable remedies.
That acknowledgment requires a simple method for its application; which is:
  1. To educate myself, I must begin following the Standard for Review when I research the law and or history;
  2. I must stop trusting third parties as a foundation source for law and history; and,
  3. Instead of trusting third parties, I must turn to the actual records of law and history for understanding and or verification; in other words, I must start studying and learning for myself;
  4. During my study, I need to take notes regarding my understanding and or lack of the same; and,
  5. Finally, I must put what I learn to work.
Now, none of that will do any good and you cannot get to the answer and win our nation back if you do not understand and secure:
  1. Who you are
      The Way of Kings™ has Foundational Instruments that beyond contest secures your individual sovereign nature and status in law.
    If I had participated in a relationship with the Social Security Administration using a Social Security number, then I would need to secure in fact and law the true nature of that relationship;
      On request, Team Law provides its beneficiaries with sample instruments through which they can educate themselves in the process of so securing the Social Security Administration created relationship.
    Having secured the relationship with Social Security Administration the individual can now control that relationship, and respectively Corp. U.S.
  2. I would next secure my ownership interest in Land by verifying my acceptance of the land patent that stands as Title to my Land rights and accordingly secure any property appurtenant to that Land;
  3. I would participate in the gubernatorial election in my local State;
  4. I would participate in the reseating of the Electoral College and accordingly participate in the original jurisdiction Presidential elections in 2012, if the college cannot be seated in 2008.
Idealizing that a presidential candidate in the Corp. U.S. elections can accomplish the tasks necessary to save our nation is nearly ludicrous even if such a candidate can get elected. Our only apparent solution is to learn the law and restore our original jurisdiction government. Then we can win it all back. Of course, our opinion is, if the people do not repent and realign themselves with God, we have little hope as a nation anyway.

We are saddened that there are so many profiteers out there that promote unworkable paths or that attempt to pervert what we have presented into the likes of which Ed was responding to in his assessment; it should be obvious that perversion is not what we have shown. In fact, Ed and I have talked on a few occasions and we tend to agree with one another. We have not talked to him since he released his latest version of his ‘Creature’ book and since he got more involved with Mr. Becraft and the Russo movie. We feel their tainting of his opinions is a turn for the worse and hope he discovers the errors therein related.

The solution will never be, find some Guru to hang your hat on then do what they say. That path will usually bring destruction. The solution we presented in the steps above exemplifies the fact that the solution is always going to be:
Learn the truth and put the truth to work.


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 “Patriot Mythology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest