: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^:

Questions regarding US History.

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

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Jsn123
Registered
Posts: 1
Joined: Thursday January 28th, 2010 4:05 pm MST

Questions regarding US History.

Postby Jsn123 » Wednesday February 3rd, 2010 10:43 pm MST

To Team Law questions regards U.S. History:
Team Law wrote:Happy Fourth of July!
This is one of my favorite holidays. Historically we get together with family and have a reunion centered around a picnic, watermelon, and fireworks.
Obviously, the author sounds quite knowledgeable.
I am sure we could add something to each other’s databases.
I would like to talk to the Author(s) who wrote that article for the Team Law web site; to have him/them answer some questions, please:
  1. Does he know that the Bill of Rights has been stricken from FEDERAL JUDGES training books in the West (maybe there as well).
  2. Does he know that the 9th Amendment has never been entertained by the Supreme Court – in practice, rendering it a legal nullity (all-be-it not a lawful nullity).
  3. Why does the man use the small “g” government when talking about the real government?
  4. He must be aware of the CAPITALIZATION, Capitalization, and capitalization schemes – right?
  5. Did the new Amendments limit the original Bill of Rights Amendments, and if so, is it the COURTS, Courts, courts - that have done so?
  6. Which has precedent, i.e. if there was a Tenth Amendment and someone passes a 13 Amendment, does it obviate, in areas of conflict, the prior Amendment – and is this how the COURTS have invaded the Constitution with the RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS (on top of the Marberry v Madison outrage)?
  7. Is he aware of the CORPORATE CONSTITUTION?
  8. Who owns, or has controlling interest in the private CORPORATION a.k.a. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC?
  9. Who are its OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS.
  10. Do I have stock or can I buy some stock?
Some snippets from the man’s article with questions attached.
Team Law wrote:… they simply added the Bill of Rights so the Republic would forever remain of, by, and for the people.
Question: Why then have they been discarded or is obviated the word because the Banking syndicate/OR CORPORATE can always bring suit in the private CORPORATE FEDERAL COURTS?
Team Law wrote:Fifth: The individual States were given the original Constitution with the attached “Bill of Rights” under the name “Constitution of the United States of America” and all of the States accepted and ratified the documents”.
Woops, as I remember the original document said: “The Constitution for the uNited States of America, Incorporated.

Question? Isn’t it important to know whether the Constitution is “for” one or “of” one?
Team Law wrote:…individually first swore an Oath of Office stating they would uphold the, Constitution of the United States of America. Again it is very important to notice the name used in the Bill or Rights and now used for this “contract” with the officers and agencies serving under Oath to obey and uphold the: Constitution of the United States of America, not, “for”, but 'of”.
    Note: It’s important to note here that we are indeed talking about two different documents. The First, the, Constitution for the United States of America, is a Trust and the Second, the, Constitution of the United States of America, is a contract between the officers of government and the beneficiaries of the Trust.
Question? Where does the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES come in? Is it the same as the Constitution of the United States of America, as stated above and is this, yet another, “jurisdiction”?

User avatar
Vzeng1
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 59
Joined: Sunday December 14th, 2008 7:59 pm MST

Re: Questions regarding US History.

Postby Vzeng1 » Thursday February 4th, 2010 7:04 am MST

Jsn123,
Welcome to Team Law. It appears from your questions that you could benefit from being refocused away from some of the opinions you presented. You've come to the right place. Team law can help; but, we are all about self-education and we will not do the work for you; however, we will help you learn how to learn the truth.

Here's a suggested post that will help jump start direct your course of study: Myth 22.

The author you are requesting for is the man that lends physical capacity and consciousness to the office of the Trustee of Team Law, Mr. Eric Madsen. Your questions are specific and therefore I encourage you to first seek out what has already been posted on this website countless times. Use the search utility at the top of the forum because chances there is a post related to your questions. If after you have searched for your answers and you still have questions, then you can contact our Trustee via sending him a Private Message. It will serve you tremendously if you do (like I did) the prerequisite workout study from the resources on Team Law first.

Vzeng1

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

Re: Questions regarding US History.

Postby Admin » Tuesday June 22nd, 2010 10:08 am MDT

:h: Jsn123:
Admin held off in responding to your inquiry because we wanted to give others a chance to respond. We expected responses similar to the response Vzeng1 wrote pointing you to the information we have already posted on both our websites and on our forum. In fact, most of the questions you asked are answered on our Patriot Mythology page and, as Vzeng1 suggested, most of those answers can be found in the Prerequisite Knowledge section of Myth 22.

Vzeng1 is also correct to refocus you to do your own study regarding such matters; however, we have found that all too often, due to misinformation and the omission from studying the actual history and law from its source, people get some misconceptions that justify showing the correct path. That is exactly what Team Law does in the process of helping people learn how to learn the truth from their own personal firsthand experience of studying the law.

Accordingly, we hope to share with you our responses to your questions in the hope that it will inspire you and others to refresh their interest and study of our history and law; therefore, our point-by-point responses to your questions are as follows:
  1. No. And, such information (accurate or not) seems irrelevant to the actual purpose of federal judicial training manuals; therefore, the presupposition raises no cause for concern. Though new judicial training manuals can be produced leaving instruments such as the Bill of Rights out of them, we are unaware of any law or other compelling factor that would require publishers of such training manuals to include the same. However, we also do not believe it is even possible for the Bill of Rights to be “stricken” from such training manuals. For that to happen the Bill of Rights would have to have already been published in the manuals and then it would have to have been removed from those publications. We are certain that did not happen. However, the language pattern you used is certainly representative of marketing language of those that would present specious information to incite unwarranted action from a passionate people. We also expect an investigation into the facts of the matter would prove the allegation is not accurate. Again, we would not be surprised that such training manuals would be published without having either a copy of the Constitution or its amendments in them. Those historical documents are available to federal judges (and to anyone else that wants to review them) from many sources; all within reach of such judges. Thus, there would be no point in publishing the same in such a training manual. Thus, if they had published the same in such manuals in the past we see no cause for alarm if the same is not included in newer publications of such manuals.
  2. Though we are fully aware that neither the nation’s ninth nor the tenth amendments have ever been reviewed by the Supreme Court, your conclusion implying nullity is totally without merit. The Constitution needs no judicial review to affect its mandates upon government. The reason the effect of those amendments have not been reviewed is their application has never been challenged. Still, that does not negate the effect of the same. Accordingly, you may want to reconsider your impression of the alleged “legal nullity” idea. We certainly find no support for the allegation and consider the same as a ridiculous concept that has no support in reality.
  3. We use a small “g” when we spell government because we the word is grammatically used as a common noun. English language usage defines the spelling of common nouns with all lower case letters unless the word is the first word in a sentence. Accordingly, if we are not using the word “government” as part of a proper noun, we do not capitalize it. Though we certainly make mistakes from time to time, we do our best to follow English language grammar rules in our writing. That practice certainly includes capitalization rules and all other such rules to the best of our ability. We always appreciate corrections whenever anyone finds errors in such usage and we always make the appropriate corrections when they are discovered.
  4. When you refer to “CAPITALIZATION, Capitalization, and capitalization schemes”, we expect you are not referring to English language grammatical rules; rather, we expect you are referring to patterns any given author may follow as part of their “author’s license” in creatively crafting their work. Accordingly, we recognize such things as well as the respective elements of English language grammar. However, we have no idea what that has to do with Team Law, our Open Forum system or anything else related to the purpose of our Open Forum system (see Forum Rule 3). Accordingly, we hope you will review those rules for your future posts; so we can better keep our forum focused on-point with its purpose. Those rules also ask our users to refrain from using capitalization as a form of shouting with the written word. The practice only makes posts more difficult to read. Your usage of the pattern: “CAPITALIZATION, Capitalization, and capitalization schemes”, followed by, “COURTS, Courts, courts” seems to indicate that you are intending some form of such a scheme in your post; however, because you did not further define that scheme we can only imagine what your intended meaning is.
  5. No. We are not aware of any constitutional amendments that limit other such amendments; though, that is not impossible. Accordingly, if you imagine such a situation we expect that as a result of a misapplication of the Constitution as is common among those that refer to things like “constitutional rights” when there are no such things. The Constitution for the United States of America created the government. The Constitution of the United States of America binds the officers of that government to the limitations of their authority. Neither of them affects the rights of the people in any way.
  6. A later amendment could revise a former amendment but we are not aware of any such conflicts currently in place. Certainly a study of the matter would prove itself in any given set of actual circumstances. However, our Forum Rules negate the use of our forum for the review of hypothetical situations; so, we will not embark on the path of hypothecating such a circumstance.
  7. We assume the things you are referring to as “RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS” are the Amendments formed under what has been called the “Reconstruction Era”, that being the period shortly after the Civil War, when the original jurisdiction Congress was working on bringing the country back together after the war. Today, those amendments are called the 13th, 14th and 15th articles of amendment; however, when they were initially resolved they were the 14th, 15th and 16th articles of amendment. When Corp. U.S. was formed in 1871 it adopted its “United States Constitution”, which did not include the nation’s 13th Article of amendment; thus they renumbered the latter three starting with the 13th amendment. We reviewed those matters on our Audio CDs that bear the names of those amendments respectively and so refer you to those CDs for your further education on that matter. That topic would require far too long a response that we are willing to write on the forum.
  8. Yes, in fact Team Law has likely done more to make others aware of the Corp. U.S. Constitution than any other person. Most others that talk about it today discovered it from Team Law’s work.
  9. Corp. U.S. is not that kind of corporation. Its formation did not provide for stock shares because it was formed by and respectively wholly owned by the original jurisdiction government (see: District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871). However, under the conditions of the Bretton Woods Agreement, the newly formed International Monetary Fund (hereinafter “IMF”) acquired direct access and control of the resources of Corp. U.S.’ treasury in exchange for the Corp. U.S. President having control over the governors and general managers of the fund. Thus, though the IMF effectively gained control over Corp. U.S., the President of Corp. U.S. gained control over the IMF.
  10. Corp. U.S.’ officers and directors are its President and Congress and those they may respectively appoint or assign.
  11. No. Again, Corp. U.S. is not that kind of corporation (stock born).
Responding to your “snippet questions”:
  1. Your first question incorrectly presupposes the Bill of Rights was discarded or otherwise obviated; which thing has not happened. What has happened is the people have forgotten the law and have no idea how the Bill of Rights works or upon whom it is applied; therefore, they do not know how to use it. In reality, the Constitution and its amendments are alive and well (howbeit, hanging by the thread of the people’s ignorance). The solution is: learn the law and apply it.
  2. Responding to our publication of the wording of the Bill of Rights regarding the name of the Constitution, you recalled the same from your memory as “The Constitution for the uNited States of America, Incorporated”; however, that memory was clearly affected by Patriot Mythology the likes of which we debunked in Myth 13. Accordingly, we suggest you may want to correct that memory with a look at the transcripts and high resolution photographs available at the National Archive’s website. You will find the name of the Constitution is presented exactly as we provided.

    After making that error you asked the question: “Isn’t it important to know whether the Constitution is "for" one or "of" one?” Though we question you usage of “one” in that inquiry, we also again point out the fact that the two constitutions are significantly different one from the other and thus, they have two different names. The constitution that formed the government (Constitution for the United States of America) has no amendments. It is simply the trust indenture that formed the government. The second constitution (Constitution of the United States of America) is the one that contractually limits the applicable authority of the officers of that government; which is why all such officers are required to take an oath to uphold the same.
  3. Your final question was made regarding the Corp. U.S. constitution; which is titled, United States Constitution; however, you spelled it with all capital letters. Again, it is Corp. U.S.’ constitution. It is not the same as either of the nation’s constitutions. The linguistic differences between them are as follows:
    1. The Constitution for the United States of America is the original constitution (trust indenture) that formed our Constitutional Republic form of government by entrusting in that government the limited authority from the people necessary to function in accord with its terms. It has seven articles and no amendments.
    2. The Constitution of the United States of America first includes the constitution listed in paragraph “a.” (above) followed by the 10 articles of amendment commonly known as the Bill of Rights plus the six articles of amendment that were added to it by 1871. It is the constitution all officers of our Constitutional Republic’s government must take an oath to uphold; accordingly, it is the contract that limits said officers to the proper application of the people’s authority when acting in any such office.
    3. Then there is the United States Constitution; which was adopted by Corp. U.S. when it was formed. It uses the exact same words as the constitution listed in paragraph “b” (above) except:
      1. It does not include that constitution’s 13th article of amendment;
      2. It renumbers the nation’s 14th, 15th and 16th articles of amendment as its 13th, 14th and 15th articles of amendment; and,
      3. It has an additional 16th through 27th articles of amendment that are not included in the nation’s constitution. In fact, its 27th article is the original Bill of Rights proposed second article of amendment that was not ratified by the original jurisdiction Union states and is therefore not included in the traditional Bill of Rights (as ratified).
    You asked a final question regarding whether the Corp. U.S.’ constitution was made regarding another jurisdiction. If by that you mean separate from the original jurisdiction constitutions then the answer is: “Yes, it certainly does.” Though, we expect that response should be obvious. Further, that other jurisdiction is one that can only be entered contractually; in spite of the fact that Corp. U.S. was charged with the responsibility of carrying out the business needs of the actual original jurisdiction government as well. For the most part, due to The Seduction most people don’t act in their natural capacities too much; not that they cannot, merely because they have no idea how to.
    Which, is the natural result of living their entire lives ignorant of the law, its history and their own God given inherent responsibilities to know and apply the same. Accordingly, they were seduced.
Of course, that is why Team Law exists—to help the people awaken to the elemental necessity that they repent of their ignorance by learning the law its history and application from their own firsthand experience. Team Law can help you learn how to easily learn the law and learn how to lawfully apply it to win our nation back.

We can save our Constitution from hanging by the thread.
The only reason it is so hanging is the peoples’ ignorance.
That ignorance is eliminated by learning the law and applying it.
Team Law helps people learn how easy it is to learn the law from your own firsthand experience of studying the law from its source—therefore, we can help you learn how to learn the law and no longer be swayed by myths espoused by so many people both on and off of the internet.

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.

OldModelT
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 5
Joined: Tuesday September 4th, 2012 9:24 pm MDT

Re: Questions regarding US History.

Postby OldModelT » Sunday September 16th, 2012 8:01 pm MDT

In regards to the below quote:
Admin wrote:9. Corp. U.S. is not that kind of corporation. Its formation did not provide for stock shares because it was formed by and respectively wholly owned by the original jurisdiction government (see: District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871). However, under the conditions of the Bretton Woods Agreement, the newly formed International Monetary Fund (hereinafter “IMF”) acquired direct access and control of the resources of Corp. U.S.’ treasury in exchange for the Corp. U.S. President having control over the governors and general managers of the fund. Thus, though the IMF effectively gained control over Corp. U.S., the President of Corp. U.S. gained control over the IMF.

the following quote from "HistoryOutline" must be in error:
Team Law wrote:13th: In 1944, under the Bretton Woods Agreement, Corp. U.S. is quit claimed to the International Monetary Fund, and becomes a foreign controlled private corporation.

I didn't want to stick my neck out there regarding this matter and have someone discredit me.

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

Re: Questions regarding US History.

Postby Admin » Monday September 17th, 2012 3:06 pm MDT

:h: OldModelT:
Actually, though people sometimes misunderstand the usage of the phrase “quit claimed” as it was used by Team Law in the Historical Outline, both the statement made by Admin (above) and the one made by Team Law (just referenced) are correct.

To understand why we have to go to Team Law’s usage of the phrase, “quit claimed”; which, in the context we used it, is not the same as the quitclaim in a ‘quitclaim deed’ related to real estate. However, if we look to a quitclaim deed made in relation to land secured by a land patent that usage is similar to how Team Law used it in the Historical Outline. Of course, to understand that usage you first have to understand the language of the land patent. However, to fully review that language would require Team Law beneficiary support (which is only available to Team Law beneficiaries); so, we in this response we will limit our review to the fact that the language of the land patent specifically grants landownership to the named party and to their heirs and assigns forever. Thus, from the onset of the grant provided in the land patent the land already belongs to all of those named forever. Accordingly, if such a landowner uses a quitclaim deed to grant his assignment of land patent secured land to some subsequent owner that assignment will not affect the original landowner title to the land at all. Now, we know that seems odd to anyone that does not already understand Land Law; but, the statement is accurate. However, to address that matter further would require Team Law beneficiary support; so, we will have to leave that matter to those that have such support.

Suffice it to say that the process of quitting a claim from one party to another involves two things:
  1. Property rights are granted from the Grantor (original holder) to a Grantee (new party);
  2. Where possible, the Grantor quits (meaning vacates) their claim to the same.
However, in law several other elements are also recognized when dealing with quitclaims:
  1. Nothing in a quitclaim deed warrants that the Grantor of the thing has any right so to do; and,
  2. Accordingly, if the Grantor does not possess the right to vacate their claim then vacation does not happen.
In the case of Corp. U.S., they do not possess the right to vacate their control over the United States Treasury; thus, their grant made in accord with the Bretton Woods Agreement did not divest Corp. U.S.’ control over the Treasury, it only gave the IMF access to it.

By the way, we have never liked the usage of the term, “quit claimed”, as it was used in the Historical Outline article; however, we have not come up with a better term that well enough describes what took place. Respectively, when anyone has a suggestion of a better term, we will consider suggesting that Team Law use it to replace the same. Meanwhile, “quit claimed” does explain what happened so long as you realize that Corp. U.S. does not possess the capacity to divest itself of either its responsibility or its control over the United States Treasury; still, that limitation does not limit them from providing the access that was so granted.

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.

OldModelT
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 5
Joined: Tuesday September 4th, 2012 9:24 pm MDT

Re: Questions regarding US History.

Postby OldModelT » Monday September 17th, 2012 10:42 pm MDT

The expression "foreign controlled private corporation" would also not be correct — as I understand your explanation. In fact, in my mind, allowing any foreign entity access to our public treasury for any reason is an act of treason against the public trust that the US & company have sworn to uphold and defend against.

Thinking about the US Treasury: What valuable thing could possibly be in it after the US Gov. went bankrupt and still is? I don't see any value in FRNs. If FRNs have no value, then how can the US debt ever be paid off? How is the endgame going to be played?

In fact, according to a maxim of law: a bankrupt has no standing in law to sue or be sued — it is civilly dead. I don't see any way how an entity that is civilly dead can be capable to enact any law or to enforce it. If this is true, then WHO is in charge and enacting these so-called laws?

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

Re: Questions regarding US History.

Postby Admin » Tuesday September 18th, 2012 4:54 pm MDT

:h: OldModelT:
The IMF foreign control of Corp. U.S.’ Treasury is clearly the effect of the Bretton Woods Agreement. By way of example: you may recall the news media reports some time ago when the power of the IMF’s control was well demonstrated. President Clinton told Congress to give Mexico over 30 billion dollars; Congress said, “No.” Therefore, President Clinton went to the IMF who respectively instructed Congress to give Mexico the funds. Congress immediately complied and Mexico got the funds from the United States Treasury even though it was obviously against the House of Representatives’ will.

However, regardless of such issues you would do well to remember that the US Treasury is not, now and never has been, a “public treasury” as you suggested. Accordingly, the access expressed above is a matter of a lawful agreement—therefore, regardless of any opinion to the contrary we are aware of no such obligation “to uphold and defend against” the same. If you were intending to refer to the Treasury of the United States of America, which was created in accord with the Constitution, that Treasury was absolved by Corp. U.S. in 1920—thus, it no longer exists.

Regarding your question about the contents of the US Treasury and FRNs thereto related, we suggest you should read Team Law’s presentation of the Patriot Mythology Myth 22 and pay particular attention to the seven elements of Prerequisite Knowledge provided at the beginning of that article.

You asked us to predict how the “end game” will be played out. Quite frankly, we do not believe in an end game. The one thing that is as certain as the last 6,000 years of life on this planet, there will be a tomorrow. What that day, and all of the days that will follow it, will be like is totally up to the people. If they will stop and take advantage of their responsibility to learn and apply the law, then those days will be filled with growing freedom and prosperity; however, if they do not, then it is anybody’s guess.

However, the choice is up to you, just as it is up to everybody else. It will serve no one to worry over such things. Worry and fear are the killers of the faith necessary to do good works. Instead, we must simply take care of our responsibilities, learn the law and do what is right—that is: live in accord with and apply the law. Of course, for those that do not yet understand what we mean by that, we suggest that you first take advantage of our Success Network. We created it to help people learn how to be successful in spite of whatever may be happening around you. Also, as you study the law, follow the Standard for Review and pay close attention to learning the foundation of all law, that being the commands God gave mankind at creation. If you will do that then, you will be on the right track any you will begin to live without fear and or worry.

Your question about a bankrupt party includes several presuppositions (like the allegation of being legally dead) that are often incorrectly expressed by those that do not understand bankruptcy; however, delving into such a matter would require Team Law beneficiary support. However, we can simplify the matter here by refering you to any private party that may have gone through bankruptcy; they continue to be able to contract with others (in accord with the terms of their bankruptcy). For example, they can continue to contract for employment and invest in the marketplace. Respectively, they are only limited by the terms of that bankruptcy until it is resolved. Corp. U.S. is no different. Since they entered bankruptcy in 1933, they continue to function in accord with the terms of that bankruptcy. Again, as you read Myth 22, it should be helpful for you to understand their current situation regarding that limitation.

We expect the so called laws you inquired about are the Corp. U.S. statutes and your participation with them is likely made in accord with your agreements to manage

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 3 guests