| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| yashua1970 |
Posted - 01 Apr 2007 : 18:33:21
Hello All.
I should introduce myself.
My name is Chris.
I am from Sherman, Texas.
I am married with 4 children and one grandchild.
I have a question for anyone who can help me out.
Has any one heard of "Team Law"?
www.teamlaw.org
I have tried to register with their forum but have had problems with Sending my verification.
They espouse alot of information about certain patriot topics that have been in question from other people.
It seems their info is good, but when it comes to doing any kind of investigation about them or the 37 original jurisdiction State Governors’ seats that were supposed to have been vacant (but have now been filled) I keep running into "Walls"
If anyone could help out, it would be great.
The Patriot Mythology section is what made me start to search the rest of their findings out, but I am not sure as to their conclusions.
http://www.teamlaw.org/Mythology.htm
|
| 6 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Team Law |
Posted - 26 Apr 2007 : 02:35:06
Hello Chris, Lewish, Greg and others:
Your posts on this forum were reported to us so we took a look and decided to register on this forum to respond to the posts in the hope that our response could help you all get reasonable responses from the source.
When you ask here if anyone has heard of Team Law, you are asking a relatively small group, so it is respectively unlikely that you will get much of a response. None the less, one might expect the inquiry could generate some kind of a return regardless of the value the response may have.
One might note the best place to learn about any given religion is from its source as opposed to going to its competitors for parishioners. That is to say, we would go the Jehovah’s Witnesses to learn about them and to Seventh-Day Adventists to learn about them as opposed to going to Jehovah’s Witnesses to learn about Seventh-Day Adventism or visa versa.
Chris, we recognize your inquiry here seems to be based upon a difficulty you had in “sending verification” to Team Law while you were registering for access there. Like this Forum, our system has an e-mail and user identification confirmation process that is required. When you registered for participation on our Team Law’s Open Forum system the automated response system sent you some responsive e-mail messages. One should have confirmed what the username and password you used to register were; another is quoted as follows:quote:
"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom, and of our spouses, our children, and our peace."
Hello Yashua1970:
We just received a request for activation of a new user account from you on the Team Law Open Forum and are accordingly sending this e-mail as a request for confirmation of your identity. We confirm identity by sending this responsive e-mail to you. If you respond to this e-mail with confirming contact information regarding your request for access to our Open Forum, we will grant access to our Open Forum. We follow this procedure to verify the information posted on our Forum during your registration and to keep our Open Forum secure from spammers etc.
Please respond to this message with reasonable contact information (which is at least your actual name, address and a phone number”) such that we may know who the actual party is that desires access to our forum.
When we receive the same, we will then have the capacity to activate your registration to our Open Forum. This may take some time because each registration must be handled manually. Please be patient, thank you.
…
Our automated response system has not yet received the required information in response to that e-mail our system sent; therefore, access has not yet been granted. If you will simply send an e-mail to ForumAdmin@teamlaw.org and include your username, your actual given name, mailing location and a phone number, we will grant you access to our Open Forum system where you can get your questions answered first hand.
If you are having difficulty making that response by e-mail, you can feel free to call us on the phone numbers provided through our Contacting Team Law page (http://www.teamlaw.org/ConferenceCall.htm).
We do not know what “Walls” you have run into so we cannot comment on that regard here and that would likely better be resolved on our forum once you get registered with access to our forum.
Rather than merely presenting our opinions on our Patriot mythology page (http://www.teamlaw.org/Mythology.htm), the conclusions shown are verifiable conclusions of law; therefore, the solution to discovering their accuracy is your study of the relevant law, which is exactly what Team Law works so hard to do, that is to get people to study the actual law for themselves, rather than believing any third party source (Team Law included). We hope this information is helpful to you.
Greg:
Your response was made first to Chris’ inquiry, so we will address it next. We are not aware of any point on Team Law’s sites that is not right on the mark. However, with a website as extensive as Team Law’s is it is inevitable that we make an error from time to time. That is why we make corrections whenever we find any errors. Therefore, in regard to your comment:quote:
they seem to have some of it right, and some not so much
Therefore, we ask you to please specify what you take contest with from our presentation. If you can provide us with evidence of any errors on our site we will gladly correct them. We are not referring to unsupported opinions here; rather, we are referring to actual evidence of any errors on our websites, anywhere.
In your response to Chris you stated:quote:
The two biggest things I see repeatedly done are people trying to "lay claim" or whatever terminology they use, to the "LEGAL NAME" (A.K.A. Straw man, vessel in commerce, the sticky magnet, etc) … .
The other thing is trying to take UCC filings (especially pertaining to "THE ENTITY, LEGAL NAME, etc" and you as a man, into a "statutory" court and having them recognized.
However, we do not understand your presentation of these points because we have debunked both of those “things” on our Patriot mythology page (http://www.teamlaw.org/Mythology.htm). In fact we have never seen such matters debunked so well anywhere else. Anyone with a reasonable understanding of those bogus theories should understand that we show why those theories are bogus and do not work. Thus, we are a bit confused as to why you would allege that we present the contrary. Perhaps you should go back to our site and again review those myths.
As to your attempting to contact your local State Governor, we may be able to facilitate that if they want to respond. We have no control over them though and we would certainly respect their right to privacy if they do not want to respond back, for whatever reason. We expect that for whatever reason they most likely did not get your message. At this time there is not too much of a reason for an original jurisdiction governor to have any real need to contact anyone in their State because they are the chief executive administrator, who’s job requires them to primarily administer the operations of the executive branch of government, which does not include any responsibility to individual people unless those people have some cause of action for them to deal with. Chances are, when the only person in the original jurisdiction State government today is the Governor, if they don’t do something wrong there is likely no reason for them to have to take any overt action, not the least of which would be respond to e-mail. We know that sounds a bit odd, but it is certainly a reality with which the Governors deal. We expect that condition will remain the same until there are more officers in the original jurisdiction government, giving them something to govern.
As to the court case reference you gave regarding that Governor, we are not aware of the case you are referring to or the details you presented do not match any case we are aware of. We are aware of similar cases but they did not have the effects you related so we would appreciate more information so that we can reasonably respond to whatever the situation was. Again, all such things would be better resolved on our Open Forum system so we invite you to go there and register for such responses.
We are certainly not at this point contesting your presentation of that case because as we said we are not aware of the particulars of the case because you provided no information either showing who the person you are referring to or to the court case citation itself. With that information, we could make a reasonable response. Again, we would prefer doing that on our own forum.
We present this response attempting to help you understand the truth regarding the matters you related and so hope this information is helpful to you.
In response to Yashua1970’s response, we also point out that no one at Team Law profits from our work there either. All of the people serving Team Law do so purely as volunteers. There are no paid employees at Team Law. All funds received from donations made to Team Law and proceeds from sales of materials go directly into the work of spreading the word to save our country. Over the next couple of years we need to seat the original jurisdiction Electoral College, which will cost millions of dollars in direct marketing costs alone, without which the task would be nearly impossible; nonetheless, it would be foolish not to do all we can and continue in the fight regardless how gigantic the odds are. We know our service is made only in the service of the King of Kings and of His people, so we do all we can to accomplish the task and await the outcome. At the end of the day we will be able to report a report much like Peter did, ‘We have fought a good fight and we have finished our course’, we can also then ask Him “What’s next?”
To Lewish we respond: There is no such danger in paying with gold today, in fact, we have often tendered United States gold double eagle coins for payments of debts. Each time, the party demanding payment has refused the tender and the alleged debt was respectively extinguished.
We therefore expect whatever it was you served time in “the slammer” for, it was not that within at least the last 14 years that we have been tendering payments in such gold coins.
The coins were minted and sold into circulation for the express purpose of being constitutional money and are good for tender of actual payment for any obligation. We help Team Law beneficiaries learn how to do this regularly, however we cannot provide that service outside of our obligation to support Team Law beneficiaries, so we cannot address that here. We can say that we have been doing it and many other Team Law beneficiaries have don it for over 15 years, so we have no problem with the process or its results.
Again, we hope this information is helpful to you all and welcome you to take advantage of the excellent resource that Team Law provides on our websites.
Team Law’s Open Forum System’s Admin.
Team Law,
"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace."
Website: http://www.teamlaw.org/
Open Forum: http://teamlawproductions.com/phpBB/index.php
All comments made by this author are copyrighted with all rights reserved; and, provided for educational purposes only. |
| Lewish |
Posted - 15 Apr 2007 : 15:53:28
Greetings Greg,
Ah, you also have fallen in the trap of the BEAST of propaganda. I went head to head with a BAR guy over this, and he could never show me any words that said "Public Law 73-10 is hereby repealed." Just another ruse of the system. All that was done is to remove the value of a dollar. Look at 31 USC 5101 et seq. and you will see that a dollar is defined as 100 cents and a cent is defined as 1/100th of a dollar. So, what is a dollar worth? Can't tell from the available information. All obligations prior were valued in dollars defined in an amount of silver.
Peace,
Lewis
A Man on the Land on Washington as a Citizen thereon. |
| Greg |
Posted - 15 Apr 2007 : 15:04:57
Greetings and many blessings group, hello Lewis, so good to have you back!
Is not public law 73 - 10 also known as HJR 192? If they are one in the same wasn't HJR 192 repealed?
October 28, 1977, HJR-192 was quietly repealed by public law 95-147. The joint resolution entitled "Joint resolution to assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States" approved June 5, 1933 (31 U.S.C. 463), shall not apply to obligations issued on or after the date of enactment of this section."
God Bless,
his humble servant
Greg. |
| Lewish |
Posted - 14 Apr 2007 : 21:47:15
Greetings yashua1970,
Do NOT try to pay any debt in gold. The fellow Greg talks about is lucky the tax assessor didn't take it. He could have been prosecuted and imprisioned for up to 15 years for violating Public Law 73-10.
So much of what is posted on the "pay-triot" sites is so off in the weeds, that the feds enjoy having it on the web for all to see. More fodder for the cannons and rifle balls.
I have served enough time in the federal slammer to be able to speak with at least a little bit of authority.
Peace be with you,
Lewis
A Man on the Land on Washington as a Citizen thereon. |
| yashua1970 |
Posted - 03 Apr 2007 : 19:10:38
Thank you so much Greg for responding to my questions.
I am thankful for stumbling across this forum.
I hope to be able to learn more than what I have learned about these issues, as I am new to it all, and very suspicious about anything that people espouse as "The Truth."
I enjoy this forum because no-one is out to profit off of their understanding of things.
Proverbs 23:23-24
Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.
The father of the righteous shall greatly rejoice: and he that begetteth a wise child shall have joy of him.
Peace |
| Greg |
Posted - 03 Apr 2007 : 00:47:11
Hi Chris, I'm Greg.
I believe I've read their whole site and as with every other site I've been to they seem to have some of it right, and some not so much. I do not have all the answers, I'm just able to recognize the same mistakes being made over and over again. The two biggest things I see repeatedly done are people trying to "lay claim" or whatever terminology they use, to the "LEGAL NAME" (A.K.A. Straw man, vessel in commerce, the sticky magnet, etc) and to that end I have yet to see anyone succesfully do it. I personally don't think it's possible as the Maxim of Law states (and rightfully so I might add) "He who creates a thing, controls the thing in which he creates". You, nor I, created the ALL CAPS name. They did! Therefore it's theirs, they own it, they control it, they use it as they see fit. You are only tied to it by your consent. This much I know for a fact as I've proven it to myself in a court room...the part where it's all consentual. So why go through all this trouble? Just walk away from it. Sit it down and don't pick it up again...don't answer to it...don't answer for it. This requires not using the SS number as well because it's tied to the "ALL CAPS" citizen, as well as the seperate contractual (quasi or otherwise) duties tied to the same.
The other thing is trying to take UCC filings (especially pertaining to "THE ENTITY, LEGAL NAME, etc" and you as a man, into a "statutory" court and having them recognized. Now the rational deductive argument can surely be made that the UCC (which is owned by UNIDROIT) is what the USC (United States Code) is derived from, which in turn is what the STATE codes are derived from...so they're all the same, right? Well...yeah, but! If you get them to recognize this on the record, especially as pertaining to a man, then you just got a judge to go on the record stating that it's all about commerce, and their veil of "law", "right and wrong", the Constitution of the united States which they pretend to be an evolution of, all goes flittering out the window. Then everyone would realize it's all in equity proceedings, and it's impossible for you to have a higher standing in equity when you (as a citizen) are in debt, bancruptcy, and only interact in debt (FRN's are notes of debt). So no, I can't imagine they're in a real big hury to let that cat out of the bag.
I never tried to sign up on that web site, but I did try to e-mail the person they said was "rightfully elected" for my State as I was just curious to see what he had to say, but never heard back from him. I did look him up on the net though, he had done a couple of fairly entertaining things, one of which I'll share. This isn't verbatim...just shooting from memory.
He tried to pay his CITY taxes with gold. The collector he presented the gold to obviously did not accept it, so he later argued in COURT that being as he had offered to satisfy his obligation(s) and the same was refused then this rule (which they all recognize) should apply; "Effect of refusal of tender of payment.--If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender, of the obligation of an indorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the tender relates.
He stated he was paying with substance as he objected to using debt to try and do the same because it was inherently a defective course of action. The judge never disputed that the FRN's were notes of debt (how could he?), but said that as the value of gold fluctuates then the tax collector had no way of knowing the actual value of the gold being offered, and being as the "DEFENDANT" offered no proof of the value then the tax collector was not obligated to accept it. Can you say elusively squirmy judge? Would his having brought in the days "news" paper showing what gold was trading at and a scale with him have given him a win when the tax collector refused it? I doubt it...this judge was pretty slippery as evidenced by this ruling. But the docket was an interesting read none the less.
God Bless all,
Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing.
I am but his humble servant,
Greg.
|
|
|
