:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

We hope you enjoy your experience here.

We hold free conference calls every Monday through Thursday 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 conference calls;

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^:

The Constitution is a Trust Indenture

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

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

The Constitution is a Trust Indenture

Postby Admin » Sunday December 14th, 2008 9:41 am MST

Reprint from an answer Governor Madsen provided to Jay Rutledge, responding to several questions raised by him for the “Boston Tea Party” on this date in 1998:
Jay Rutledge wrote:If as you say, “The Constitution for the United States of America is the Trust. It needed no ratification to go into effect”, then why has it an "Article VII.
The ratification of the conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.”

It has an Article VII, for the following reason:
Notice the wording of the clause does not limit the operation of the Constitution nor does it limit the government that was just created by it, “shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying”. It says, “sufficient … between the States”. Notice also that if only nine States ratified, that would have no effect on the four other States that did not ratify. Yet, the Constitution would still stand as “sufficient…between the States so ratifying”. Also, notice that ratification is not spelled out, as to method. Nothing says what ratification is. Notice also that, the Deputies already signed the Constitution and put it into the full force and affect their signatures could bear. Notice that they already made George Washington their President, which also means that they made themselves Senators according to the terms of the Constitution (because that is who seats the President when the seat is vacant). Notice that none of that changed with what Article VII called ratification. By saying what I said about the Constitution, not needing ratification to be in effect (functioning), I meant neither the States were completely controlled by it, nor the government was fully staffed and at its peak capacity. What I meant was that Trust Indenture was fully in effect and was the functioning document that already formed the Trust that is known by the people as a Constitutional Republic form of government. The States had granted their Deputies that sat in that college full authority to fix their central government. They fully recognized they were in trouble and were about to loose this nation if they did not act fast. They did not know they were going to get a Constitutional Republic out of it. They did not realize they were going to loose their Sovereign State nature because of it. But, they did know that they gave full authority to their Deputies to fix the problem. Their Deputies came back with the problem fixed and with a new central government in Trust for the People.

If it were not functioning, the Deputy’s signatures would have been of no effect. If it was not fully functioning those signers could not have been Senators and they could not have voted for and seated George Washington as President, but they did. If it was not functioning, President George Washington could not be the President until the Constitution was ratified, but he was. The key was that the States had to give up their sovereignty and reform their Constitutions under the national Constitution, which they each did. If it was not in full effect, how could they have done that, they could not have—there would have been no purpose in it.

What I did not say was that for a brief period the Articles of Confederation were still in effect. The nation itself had two presidents and two governments. Yes, the States needed to ratify the Constitution, but not so that the Constitution would be in effect. They needed to ratify to abandon the Articles of Confederation so that they could be States in the Union of States known as the Constitutional United States of America.

Your next question was:
jay rutledge wrote:You said, “Amendments to the contract cannot control the people.”
I guess I've been under a misapprehension about that 16th Amendment all these years. Or is the phrase "except with the co-operation of the States" missing here?

No, that phrase is not missing. The Constitution does not control either the people or their rights; rather it formed our Constitutional Republic government. Thus, it is designed to create and control the government not the people. Accordingly, it is not the source of the people's rights; People’s rights come from their creation under God. Rather, it is the source of the government’s privilege to govern. Thus, there is no such thing as a Constitutional Right.

You should have received the solution to understanding what that amendment is in our response to Dan Meador. That topic was addressing the fact that the Constitution for the United States of America is a Trust Indenture. That response follows:
Governor Madsen wrote:It should go without saying that all Trust Indentures create a separate Business Person we will call “The Trust”. There is no difference when The Trust is formed to control a government, as is the case with our Constitution.

The unique thing about the government of this nation is it is required to recognize the People of this nation are each individually Sovereign. Our national government was organized to serve the people by assisting with the protections against trespasses. The problem in government comes when, for whatever reason, the people forget that and begin to exercise the alleged authority of the government over the people. In this nation, no such authority exists unless the individual was convicted of a trespass warranting a punishment for said trespass. That is what the national Constitution’s 13th amendment [passed in 1818] was all about.

The issue of the Oklahoma Constitution is also well taken, and it was written that way in recognition of and for the same cause as is required by the Enabling Acts of each of the several States which requires that the states must form their constitutions under the national Constitution and not be repugnant to it. That is the very essence of what ratification of the original states was to The Constitution for The United States of America.

My previous comments to you did not go so far as to mention all of usage of the terms that seem to most people to be one constitution when in fact there are three separate constitutions that relate to national government (2 national and 1 corporate). In my previous comment I only mentioned the Trust Indenture (The Constitution for the United States of America) and the Contract with the Officers of the Trust (The Constitution of the United States of America).

Note that the corporation created in The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, and known as, “THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT” (Corp. U.S.), also created at that time their own constitution known then as The Constitution of the United States. Corp. U.S’s constitution was identical to the nation’s Constitution of the United States of America (the contract, not the Trust), except that they dropped the national constitution’s 13th amendment and renumbered the 14th, 15th & 16th amendments as their 13th, 14th & 15th amendments respectively. That left their Corp. U.S. constitution with one less amendment than the national constitution. This is, by the way, the reason that the 1873 Supreme Court ruled in the “Slaughterhouse Cases” that the 14th amendment was primarily about Slavery (One needs to remember that the “Slaughterhouse Cases” were brought in 1870 and dealt with the original 14th amendment). When that ruling is considered in relation to the Corp. U.S’s 14th amendment it gives a completely different meaning to the Corp. U.S’s amendment than the exact same words have in the national 15th amendment.

None the less, you are absolutely correct, these three completely separate constitutions give rise to a significant amount of confusion in language patters unless one is careful to use the correct name of the correct document in question at any given time. Up until the Civil War such due consideration was usually respected. After the formation of Corp. U.S. such consideration was ignored. Corp. U.S. was charged in its creation with the responsibility of carrying out the business needs of the government. From its creation, every act I have reviewed seems to be a Corp. U.S. only act, and after 42 years of no natural government acts it is no surprise that the officers would vacate their seats, knowingly or unknowingly, under the reformation of the corporate election under their 17th amendment.

The following are the names of the various constitutions followed by → their respective function and relation.

The Constitution for the United States of America
The original Trust that perfected the Union from a Confederation of Sovereign States to a Constitutional Republic.

The Constitution of the United States of America
The Contract formed by joining the original Trust Indenture with the Bill of Rights. Officers of the Trust are required to swear or affirm an agreement to uphold and obey this contract when they take office. Today it has 16 amendments, the 13th of which is known as the Titles of Nobility amendment.

The Constitution of the United States
The constitution adopted by Corp. U.S. without ratification. Today it has 27 amendments, the 13th, 14th & 15th of which are copies of The Constitution of the United States of America’s 14th, 15th & 16th amendments, respectively.

The alleged formation of a second “United States of America” did not take place except in that the term “America” was adopted by the corporation as a trademark name along with, U.S., USA, United States. What did take place was sentence structure usage that looks like the name (Title) of the nation. That is to say: the name of the nation is, “The United States of America”, and sentence structure related to the political jurisdiction of the District of Columbia (defined in the Constitution as the “United States”) in operations with America (corporate trademark name for Corp. U.S.) could be, “The United States of America”. How can anybody tell the difference except with exquisite scrutiny or knowledge of history. That was all followed by a more liberal use of terms used by Corp. U.S. and considering that Corp. U.S. was charged with the business needs of the government and that the national government had been silent as long as it had been, it is not surprising that the terminology is mingled.

The key to it all is that after 1913, any legislation relating to any of the names was passed by Corp. U.S. only. Therefore, any such legislation is of or pertaining to Corp. U.S., or it is binding on the nation only as it pertains to the then standing business needs of the original jurisdiction government (After The Bretton Woods Agreement, any such legislation could have no authority over the original jurisdiction government at all).

The 1909 relationship:
In 1909 the seven families that owned virtually all of the bonds, owed by Corp. U.S., began working on the formation of a corporation they called the Federal Reserve Bank. Their intention was to legally and lawfully participate in, and benefit from, all financial transactions within the United States. On, July 12th, 1909, Corp. U.S. entered their 16th amendment as ratified on February 3rd, 1913 (though there was no ratification of the States. Corp. U.S. needed no such ratification). That amendment could not possibly have been a national Constitution (Contract) amendment because the national Constitution already had a 16th amendment which had never been removed. On, May 13th, 1912, Corp. U.S. proposed its 17th amendment, and on, April 8th, 1913, it was entered as ratified (though again there was no ratification needed or performed). That was when the vacation from Republic’s national government began to be implemented. Corp. U.S’s Federal Reserve Act was a significant smoke screen for what was going on in the national government, which was the movement from a republic to a corporation. If Corp. U.S. was a government its form of government is called Fascism, its presentment is called Democracy, and its ruler is called an Oligarchy. Shortly thereafter the name usage was nearly unilaterally exchanged and went unnoticed till now.

Now that it has been noticed we are re-seating the original jurisdiction national and State governments and we can use all of the help in spreading the word that we can get. Especially in the 21 states that do not have governor elects in place as yet. If you have any questions about that you might want to check out our web site at: http://www.teamlaw.org.

TTFN
Governor Madsen
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.

Jonsonroc
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 7
Joined: Wednesday January 6th, 2010 9:01 am MST

Slaughterhouse Cases and the organic Constitution

Postby Jonsonroc » Wednesday January 20th, 2010 3:06 pm MST

My question is specifically about the following excerpt from the quote (note: the bold italics is my own emphasis):
Senator Madsen wrote:Corp. U.S’s constitution was identical to the nation’s Constitution of the United States of America (the contract, not the Trust), except that they dropped the national constitution’s 13th amendment and renumbered the 14th, 15th & 16th amendments as their 13th, 14th & 15th amendments respectively. That left their Corp. U.S. constitution with one less amendment than the national constitution. This is, by the way, the reason that the 1873 Supreme Court ruled in the “Slaughterhouse Cases” that the 14th amendment was primarily about Slavery (One needs to remember that the “Slaughterhouse Cases” were brought in 1870 and dealt with the original 14th amendment). When that ruling is considered in relation to the Corp. U.S’s 14th amendment it gives a completely different meaning to the Corp. U.S’s amendment than the exact same words have in the national 15th amendment.

When I read the Supreme Court ruling IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), the ruling refers to the 13th amendment as being the one that abolishes slavery. This, to me, implies that they were referring to the Corp. US's constitution rather than that of the original jurisdiction.

Is my understanding of this incorrect?

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Slaughterhouse Cases and the organic Constitution

Postby Admin » Wednesday January 20th, 2010 11:44 pm MST

:h: Jonsonroc:
Actually, the quote is correct; however, so are you (right up to the point where you wrote "rather").

The cases known as the Slaughter house cases went through the process of Appeal to be ruled on by the Supreme Court in 1873; however, the original cases from which those rulings stemmed were in the trial courts in 1870.

The quote you presented shows both of those dates; and, though the amendment in question is the 14th amendment in the Constitution of the United States of America, by the time the Supreme Court ruled on the cases it was 1873; which is two years after Corp. U.S. was formed in accord with the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871. Accordingly, by then Corp. U.S. had adopted their constitution calling it the United States Constitution; wherein the nation’s 14th article of amendment is presented as Corp. U.S.’ 13th amendment. Thus, both statements are correct.

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.

Jonsonroc
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 7
Joined: Wednesday January 6th, 2010 9:01 am MST

Re: Slaughterhouse Cases and the organic Constitution

Postby Jonsonroc » Thursday January 21st, 2010 9:37 am MST

Thank you, Admin.
Is it possible for a sovereign citizen to bring a case before the Supreme Court in which the court must make its ruling based on the laws of our Republic, rather than enforcing contract law of Corp. US?

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Slaughterhouse Cases and the organic Constitution

Postby Admin » Monday January 25th, 2010 11:22 pm MST

:h: Jonsonroc:
OK, again, please read Myth 6 regarding sovereignty.

Once you read that you should understand that because all people of competent age and ability are sovereign, there is no point in referring to people as “sovereign citizens”; by the same token if people, in spite of their sovereign personal nature, are not naturally born in the United States of America and are accordingly here not in their sovereign nature, rather they are here as tenants on the land due to their naturalization contract, that is a totally different matter. Thus, if we exclude the latter and assume you are referring to any John Doe (natural born man or woman) who may desire to bring a natural law issue concerning them to the Corp. U.S. Supreme Court and ask it for a ruling on the matter based upon natural law and or the original jurisdiction’s Constitution of the United States of America and or the laws relevant to it; we cannot speculate because we do not know the nature of such an action.

However, we expect such an issue could be so raised if that issue had any merit with any relationship to either Corp. U.S. or to some contractual issue where all parties related to the cause were lawfully bound by the terms of the agreed upon contract. However, the nature of your inquiry is a hypothetical one and we do not deal with hypothetical inquiries on our Open Forum system. Accordingly, if you were to reduce the matter to the specifics of an actual case, then our response would be limited to Team Law beneficiary support and could not be responded to on our Open Forum system except in our Beneficiary Forum. Still we hope the limited response we have provided here is helpful for you.

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