This is a WARNING! Regardless of how much you have done or how good it sounded while you did it. A large portion of the information flying around the patriot and tax protest communities is false, baseless or worse. Don't believe anybody, just because they sound good. That's right we are saying not to believe us or anyone else just because you see or hear the words. Yon need evidence; at least the quality necessary for production in court.
To reveal most of the mythology we simply follow the admonition from Foundational Law (the Bible), “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” KJV, 2 Corinthians 13:1
With that admonition it would seem wise to do your own research, not trusting
hearsay from any source. Let the two or three witnesses be factual records
of Law and History that are each verifiable by a variety of substantial sources.
This is one of the reasons we always say don’t believe us or anyone else
on such matters. Do your own research and prove the truth for your self.
We always feel such research is best done with the assistance of prayer made
with a sincere heart and real intent asking the Father for guidance to know
the truth. To discern the truth: First, pray for guidance; Second, study—when
you hear something that sounds good, do your own research, repeat the research
done by your source, get several actual source records of Law and History that
confirm the accuracy of your opinions; Third, pray again asking if what you
have discovered is not true. Only when you have an answer and you understand
the truth for your self by your own experience—take action.
Now on to revealing some the Mythology:
Our purpose in presenting these myths with their resolutions is to give you a chance to step back and take a second look.
We have significant difficulties with the logic behind the Strawman
theory and the respective Uniform Commercial Code filings.
Not only do we not believe the feds created the alleged “Strawman”,
but the Strawman theory is completely blown apart with simple logic. The
theory simply does not fit the facts already known. What's worse, this
theory sets its followers up for a gigantic fall.
Think about it, by definition a “Strawman” is: “a nonexistent
person”.
The biggest problem with that is, if a person takes the argument to its logical
conclusion in any reasonable application and someone challenges the argument
(and they will), then the issue lands in court and you allege they created a
“Strawman”. They contest your allegation saying, “we did
not.” The result is, you have to prove the existence of a nonexistent
person in order to win your argument, which is impossible—it is impossible
to prove the existence of that which does not exist. The cause has already
been challenged in the Supreme Court and that is exactly what happened, the
case was determined to be frivolous, which it obviously is. Appeal records
do not show such cases because frivolous cases are not accepted for appeal, they
are simply ruled, “frivolous”.
The foundational problem with the whole Strawman theology is that it is based
upon the thesis that the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT is a government when in fact
it is only a private foreign corporation (hereinafter “Corp. U.S.”).
Within its own corporate purview, like in any corporation, it is a 'government',
but outside of that purview it has no government authority whatsoever.
See also Strawman revisited, “I copyrighted my name”.
Myth 2:
The Social Security account number is your account number:
We have no idea where people get the idea that there is a retirement account, or retirement insurance in their name building up for their own retirement. Sure some people call it “the Social Security retirement program” or “retirement insurance” and the “I” in “FICA” stands for insurance, but the Social Security Act of 1935 describes no such account or retirement system. Said Act does describe the Social Security General Trust Fund, which is a fund dedicated to meeting the general expenses of the United States Government and it is kept together with all of the other general funds held by the United States Government. When people say, “We want to close out our social security accounts with a full refund.” There is no such account existent. To clarify funds deposited in the Social Security General Trust Fund are not refundable. Its accounts are depository in nature, meaning that they are collections at debt to the United States general depository funds (the person making such deposits has no right to them, whatsoever).
From all available evidences (which are significant), the relationship most people have with the Social Security Administration (hereinafter “SSA”) is that the SSA created a Trust at the person's request (i.e. Creator = SSA; Beneficiary = General Trust Fund; Trustee = the person for whom the application was made). As a matter of law the Trustee can never threaten the Beneficiary (i.e. the depository account in the Beneficiary's fund is not yours and it is not the Trust's and there is nothing there that will ever be “returned” to you under any condition).
Some people would allege the relationship shown here is either not a trust at all or is a “cestui que trust” in nature. To resolve forever such foolish allegations we respond with the following:
As to the allegation that the relationship is not a trust at all, we note that on application the SSA creates a name and account number then they send a social security card to the person for whom the application for the relationship was made. In the code it plainly states, ‘the card does not belong to the person'. This fact is made quite clear either with a statement on the back of the card, or in the documents that come with the card, or both. Now notice, if the card does not belong to you, it must belong to someone; and if it belongs to someone it must have value; further the card is held by the person that it was sent to; as a matter of law it cannot be used, or be compelled to be used, as identification; further, the person the card was sent to is the only person that has ever had any authority to use the name and number on that card for the purposes of transacting any business relationship of any kind. Now we ask you, “What is the nature of the relationship we just described here?” Remember, the definition of a trust is any situation where one person is in control of, or holds, a thing for, or in the benefit of, another person. Is that not exactly the situation described by the factual relationship demonstrated by the SSA when they send that card out and request the person that receives it to hold it in recognition of their capacity in relationship the SSA created on application? The answer is undeniably, “Yes!” We rest the case of the nature of that relationship and any contest to the same—it is a Trust.
Now we address that allegation that said application for a relationship with the SSA creates a “cestui que trust”. In this allegation it is important to notice that its promoters would have you believe that you are the person related to in the “cestui que” nature of the trust. So let's first discover the plain English definition of “cestui que trust”; it is an Anglo~French phrase, literally meaning: “he for whom (the) trust (is held)”. In other words, it means the Beneficiary of a trust. Now, return to the last paragraph, and notice what your capacity would be in relation to any such trust. Are you the one that controls its activities (employment, bank accounts, etc.), or are you the Beneficiary? The answer is quite simple and was already related in the last paragraph. Your capacity is the one that holds the card, the Trustee, not the Beneficiary. Further, every court case that has ever gone before the United States Supreme Court attempting to compel forth the person’s interest in “their Social Security funds” that have accumulated in their interest has come down with the same ruling, there are no such funds—the program is not a retirement program, it is not an insurance program, there are no funds held secured for them of any relation to their participation in the Social Security program. Therefore, we rest the allegation that you are the subject of some “cestui que trust” relationship as the Beneficiary of such a trust, there is a “cestui que trust” relationship as there is in any trust—that is, all trusts have a Beneficiary; in this case the Beneficiary is the United States government's General Trust Fund, not you.
If people are looking for a tax refund, by challenging the Social Security program, they are barking up the wrong tree in this relationship; it is unlawful for the Trustee to threaten the Beneficiary in any Trust. The way to get IRS collected tax refunds is to file IRS returns in accord with IRS regulations, using the proper Office of Management and Budget authorized IRS forms.
First, please note, the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) has absolutely no application in any federal venue. It was crafted by Corp. US and suggested to the corporate states as a system they could use to unify their commercial codes and relations with other such corp. states. The corp. states accordingly adopted it almost universally; still it is not related to the feds at all.
The “U.C.C. 1 Form” filing process is used by a creditor to secure the validity of beginning collection actions against a debtor in the corp. states; thus, some people look to the form as the proper way to become a “Secured party creditor”.
The strawman theologians use their marketing term, “Secured party status” to convince people that they should use the Corp. State’s U.C.C. 1 Form to establish their “Secured party status”; however, credibility to a debt is based on the actual terms and conditions of the actual debt not on the U.C.C. 1 Form.
Strawman theologians allege such a debt is owed to the natural man because Corp. U.S. allegedly created the Strawman then borrowed against it.
To debunk this myth, first go back to Myth 1 and again notice, the Strawman does not exist; therefore, the myth is busted! If the so-called strawman’s existence cannot be proven, then it will be very difficult to prove any such debt.
However, let’s follow this myth a bit further so you can understand the gravity of its pursuit. This whole argument was created because the strawman theologians could not prove their specious theory; so, they invented this ruse as a method of ‘generating evidence’ to prove their specious allegations.
The problem with the concept of creating evidence using the U.C.C. 1 Form is, so generating evidence constitutes fraud if the liability alleged in the Form does not exist. Now, that should be an eye opener, considering the fact that felony mail fraud involving a federal agency carries a penalty of 30 years in jail and a one million dollar fine per violation. That means each piece of mail used in the process of attempting to indicate such an obligation against a federal agency will put you in jail for 30 years and cost you $1,000,000.00.
Quite frankly, that is enough of a threat to cause most thinking people to rethink such a foolhardy plan (just because some guy sounded good in a seminar).
The cold hard fact remains; by definition, the alleged strawman does not exist; and therefore, cannot be proven to exist—by definition the term “Strawman” means a non-existent person. Thus, it will also be impossible to prove the existence of a debt against such a non-existent person.
But, the foolishness does not end there, the allegation is the feds created the Strawman therefore the reality of that allegation can only be adjudicated with any validity in a federal court venue and the U.C.C. has no applicability in the federal venue so you would actually have to prove the non-existent debt in a federal court to establish the claim made in the U.C.C. 1 Form filing.
However, the paperwork required to establish the alleged debt in a state venue, according to U.C.C. requirements, would be a notice and demand made directly to the debtor; and, due to the alleged debtor’s federal nature, and the bogus nature of the claim, there would be no lawful obligation on the debtor to reply. If you were to attempt to compel the matter in federal court (the only venue that could hear the case) they would certainly consider the case frivolous; but, they would hit you up for the attorney fees and respective court costs for wasting the court’s time; and, the Attorney General’s review of the case preparatory to responding to it would likely spark their prosecution on the mail fraud.
If you want to know more about this topic checkout our forum article, “Freedom Documents”.
If you want to know what really happened instead of the feds creating a strawman, study: Myth 22.
Myth 4:
Strawman revisited, “I
copyrighted my name”:
When the Strawman theologians could not prove their specious theory and the attempt to prove their U.C.C. process was less than successful or to enhance what little success they believed they might have, they decided that they could secure their beliefs by simply copyrighting their names. Then logically they could hold Corp. U.S. and the Corp. States accountable for copyright violation if their copyrighted name was misused, Right?
Wrong! Again, it is helpful to know the law. In fact, copyright law does not work that way. Even book publishers and Hollywood producers with “All Rights Reserved” in their copyrights cannot copyright the title to a book or a movie. Two of the movies I have on my shelf are both titled, “The Patriot”: one stars Stephen Segal where he is a modern doctor fighting to save the people from a deadly virus that was turned loose by a maniacal self proclaimed patriot; the other movie stars Mel Gibson, who plays the part of a Revolutionary War patriot fighting the British. Also, several of my books have the exact same title, with entirely different: authors, publishers and content; all copyrighted, with “All Rights Reserved”, and none of them having permission from the others to use the title (nor do they need such, copyright law does not protect titles).
Even without knowing the law this myth is debunked with simple
logic:
Think about it; how many people are there in the world with the name, “John
Smith”? If a person was to formally copyright their name, “John
Smith”, would that mean that no other person that already had the same
name, with that same spelling, could ever use their name again? Obviously
not. It would have no effect on anyone that already had the name, whether
that other person was a natural person or a business entity. So would
that copyright keep any father out there of the name, “John Smith”
from naming his newborn son, “John Smith”? No, it would not.
So what effect would it have if a person was to copyright their name?
It would have absolutely no effect at all (copyright law does not protect names
or titles).
There is a real danger though in copyrighting ones name if a person then attempts to use that copyrighted name to secure any right, property or privilege from any other person (real or business entity). That danger is the charge of identity theft. We have already been appraised of governance entities prosecuting people for felony identity theft in relation to this very myth.
If you fell for it in the past, your simplest remedy might be to simply not attempt to enforce the alleged copyrighted name.
Myth 5:
The Expatriation/Repatriation
process:
When the reigning Mythologists couldn’t prove their specious U.C.C. allegations they were completely frustrated and they came up with this one. It is the crown jewel of all Patriot Mythology. Nothing the feds could have ever done could top this one because, following through with this argument successfully labels an honorable yet ignorant American as a recognized foreign minded terrorist and threat to society. That is why after a person falls for this gag their only apparent remedy to get our country back is through armed rebellion; which today is a fool’s move that falls directly into the Corp. U.S. trap.
The King of Kings is quoted, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee…seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.”
To understand this one, a little history
is in order; under Lincoln's Martial Law (still in force today), in accord with,
The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, the private corporation known
as, “The United States Government” (herein “Corp. U.S.”)
was legally and lawfully formed and charged with the responsibility of carrying
out the business needs of the nation (The United States of America), which lawfully
set said corporation in charge of passport relations; Corp. U.S.’s State Department
handles such relations and recognizes that if a person attempts to expatriate
from the country without leaving it they are committing fraud.
The word, “expatriate” means to voluntarily abandon or renounce one's
country and become the citizen or subject of another.
Where it is easily proven that the United States Government is a private foreign
corporation, why would anyone ever attempt to “expatriate” from it?
Corp. U.S. is not a country.
Patriation is something that is done with countries, nations and Kingdoms, how
could you ever possibly expatriate from a private foreign corporation? You can't—it's
impossible.
It is not legally or lawfully possible to expatriate from one's country and
not leave it, unless the person is either held in prison or is a foreign enemy
(enemy, because he is not following the resident law). Further, if a person
wanted to expatriate from a country, why would they file their documentation
for the process with a private foreign corporation?
Finally, if a person never expatriated from their nation there is no cause to
repatriate to it. Patriation to the United States of America is a very
specific process which can only be done in accord with very specific guidelines
under the auspices of Corp. U.S. as per its assignment of carrying out the business
needs of the United States of America under martial law.
The Bottom Line, the alleged “Expatriation/Repatriation process”,
simply makes no sense; it is a sham some people profit off from by selling their
wares to the ignorant. The result of pursuit of such would have no lawful
effect, yet it could cause anyone that might have had some influential ability
to control Corp. U.S. to be an impotent bystander that has openly recognized
the United States Government as a "government" they were once a “citizen”
of and now they do not believe they are a part of it, in spite of its private
foreign corporate nature—either way their actions prove fraud. More
dangerously, under the conditions of the day, with the Corp. U.S.’S' war on terrorism,
those so ignorant to fall prey to this Myth are recognized as people that feel
like they are foreign to the United States and yet they will not leave but instead
they feel it necessary to arm themselves and rebel against the Corp. U.S., which
is recognized as a act of terror, therefore, under The Patriot Act, they are
held to the same standard as any terrorist and they may be arrested at any time
and held without cause for up to 7 days, when they may be charged and held indefinitely
without trial, bail or right to habeas corpus; under The Homeland Security Act,
federal Homeland Security Police (Hitler called them the “SS”) can
go anywhere to seize them recognizing such people as wartime enemies of the
State having no rights whatsoever.
Again, this is the deadliest Patriot Myth of all; its only remedy is repentance.
Myth 6:
Sovereignty is something you can loose and you have to get it back to be free:
Sovereignty comes from God. God created mankind in His own image and gave man dominion, agency and possession, which are the three elements that together define “Sovereignty”. What God has created no man can remove. Your sovereign nature exists; there is nothing you can do about it. When you enter into a contract your sovereignty is not bound; quite the contrary, it is your sovereignty that binds you to the contract. It is your sovereignty that allows you to contract. In other words, if you were not sovereign you could not enter into a contract. The only way you could lose your sovereign nature is, God could take it from you and that will not happen in this lifetime; in fact if you follow His law, that will never happen.
You can find more on this topic on Team Law’s Forum.
Myth 7:
Constitutional rights:
There is no such thing as, “constitutional rights”. The Constitution grants no rights. Our Rights do not come from the Constitution, rather the Constitution recognizes our Rights are God given and inherent. Crafting a Constitution does not change the fact that people cannot create rights or give rights they do not have to others. Further, the Constitution does not, and cannot be amended to, limit the sovereign people of the United States of America. The Constitution for the United States of America is the document the people used to create their government. It is a Trust Indenture, wherein the delegates of the college, with the creative authority from the People, formed the Indentured Trust called “government”, wherein the officers of said government are the collectively assigned the capacity “Trustee” and the People are the Beneficiary. The Bill of Rights was attached to The Constitution for the United States of America to form The Constitution of the United States of America, which binds government officials to the limited operations of government as specified in the contract and limits them from violating the God given inherent rights of the people. These constitutions neither prescribe nor claim to prescribe any rights to anyone. Instead they grant privileges to officers of government and restrict those officers from any action that would violate The Constitution of the United States of America. Our Constitutional Republic government, only governs itself as it is limited by its Constitution and Law; it has no authority to control the sovereign people of this nation; the people govern themselves. Again, the Constitution grants no rights; our Rights are God given, inherent and unalienable.
Therefore, though most rights in The United States of America are constitutionally secured, there is no such thing as a “Constitutional Right”.
Myth 8:
Having a Land Patent automatically
voids mortgages and/or property taxes:
This myth is simply false. Land Patents have nothing to do with a person's right to contract. Though the Land Patent can protect the Land from being taken, there is nothing automatic about it. One must understand what “Land” is and what appurtenances to Land are to understand how a Land Patent secures the Land.
Land Patents secure two separate kinds of property rights: appurtenant rights and hereditary rights. Patented hereditary land rights are described by their two dimensional border and extend from the center of the earth to the heavens above. Patented appurtenant land rights are described as that which pertains to the land; including things like: dirt, shrubs, trees, buildings, water, and private property sitting on the land, etc. The Land Patent expressly “grants” these patent secured rights to the named patent recipient and to their heirs and assigns, forever. That means that the property sitting within the borders of the Land is Land Patent secured to the lawful patent holder. That means, if one receives assignment to such Land through a Deed they already own it from the time the Land was initially granted and made Patent. That is why Land, in this country, has no monetary cost and cannot be bought sold or traded. So, what is it that one pays for when one acquires land via purchase? They pay for the appurtenances to the land. You see, even though the property appurtenant to the Land is also mentioned in the Land Patent, it is removable from the land and therefore has a specific value separate from the Land; therefore it is separately marketable for a price (contractible).
The Land Patent does not limit your ability to contract. Wherefore, one can contract to pay a mortgage or a tax related to such appurtenant property even if there is no conveyance off from the Land unless or until a default to the contracts payment plan occurs, at which time if the contracting party fails to perform in concert with the terms and conditions of the contract the other party can sue for foreclosure of the contract and so secure the property rights according to the term and conditions of the contract. This type of action can only secure the property, it cannot secure assignment to the land itself—this puts a cloud on the title and a person that understands Land Rights may be able to evict the new property holder from the Land.
Mortgage elimination programs, for the most part, are ways to attempt to defeat a contract in a manner contrary to its terms and conditions, which the parties agreed to from the onset.
If the obligee to a mortgage or a property related tax obligation fails to perform according to the terms of the contract, fraud charges may be brought against them, which charges could prevail in a court contest to prove that the fraudulent party acquired their assignment to the Land (and its Land Patent) by fraud, in which case, the Land would be lost including the assignment to the Land Patent secured rights. End of story.
Land patents best secure land and its related appurtenant property when the land is kept free of mortgages and property taxing contracts. In all cases property protection is best secured by arranging a competent asset protection system to work in concert with your land patents. We prefer the services of The Way of Kings™ for all such solutions.
The bottom line is: if the car becomes too expensive to afford, you timely get one you can afford to maximize your current equity position and eliminate the expense—This principle applies to houses etc.; it is generally called economizing. Though a man might be able to prevail in a mortgage elimination program, if doing so makes him violate his word, his honor, his trustworthiness the price is too great for his soul, which is far more important. In life, sometimes circumstances can knock us down—the secret is: get back up and do it honorably. The sad news today is that seems to be a secret.
You can find more on this topic on Team Law’s Forum.
Myth 9:
Land Patents no longer work:
This myth only fools the fool that refuses to read the Land Patent and study the relevant Law, which states that the Land Patent stands as supremacy law in every State. The Land Patent itself stands a contract between the King, Governor or President of the United States of America and the party named in the Land Patent. According to its own terms it lasts forever, and that time has not yet come, therefore as a matter of Law, the Land Patent is still valid, it still works and it will continue to work so long as those assigned to it know how to put it to work protecting their Land.
Again, this Myth is blown away by simply reading the Land Patent itself and then reading the rest of the documents in the chain of assignment (Title Abstract). This is one of the reasons that title companies and banks today push title insurance and do not want people to get abstracts. If those documents are not enough to convince you then the case law supporting land patents is quite extensive and it all supports the land patent.
You can find more on this topic on Team Law’s Forum.
Myth 10:
You can Patent your Land:
This matter goes a bit deeper and here we will only scratch the
surface. To fully understand this matter you have to understand acts of
war, Corp. US and its limited responsibilities, conflicts in law and its private
foreign owner, along with what the right to Patent is.
Limitedly, for a Land Patent to have validity it must be originated at the national
level according to relevant Law. Where the people are individually sovereign
and can issue their own Land Patents with regard to Land rightfully secured
to them; the jurisdiction of such a patent’s enforceability would extend to them
only, it would have no relation to the State or to the nation. Therefore,
it would have no enforceability outside the individual capacity of the sovereign
that issued it; further, any enforcement actions would constitute an act of
war. Likewise, a person having no rightful assignment to Land cannot issue
a Land Patent without committing an act of war. Corp. U.S. cannot issue
a valid Land Patent today and it has not been able to do so since the Bretton
Woods Agreement in 1944 because of its foreign owner which creates a conflict
of interest, which negates the validity of any Land Patent.
You can find more on this topic on Team Law’s Forum.
Myth 11:
The 50 star flag itself without the gold tassels, braids or other attachments
is the proper flag of our nation
The fifty star flag was introduced by Corp. U.S. as the flag of
the nation in the 1950s to recognize the entry of private corporations known
as THE STATE OF ALASKA and THE STATE OF HAWAII into the corporate union (Corp.
US) of STATE OF 'X' corporations. It could not have been issued as a result
of the Alaska and Hawaii Territories entering the Union of States of the United
States of America because from the 1944 Bretton
Woods Agreement forward Corp. U.S. was privately owned by a foreign power
with a conflict of interest limiting it from issuing an Enabling Act that could
allow a State to form.
Further, there was no President of the United States of America then seated
in the original jurisdiction government seat, whose signature is necessary to
sign any valid Enabling Act for those territories to become such States.
Further, there was no original jurisdiction national Congress seated at that
time to generate such necessary Enabling Acts.
Therefore, there are to this day only 48 States in the Union of States of the
United States of America and the proper flag of our nation has only 48 stars
on its jack.
The 50 star flag is the proper flag of the President of Corp. U.S. and is properly
used in his capacity as the Commander in Chief of the military forces of the
United States of America, which are an original jurisdiction government body
but they stand today under the assignment of Lincoln's martial law as the enforcers
of that martial law, whose business needs are dictatorially controlled by Corp.
U.S.’ President.
Myth 12:
Signing and instrument “Without Prejudice” negates contractual liability:
When you sign an instrument with the statement “Without Prejudice”, all you accomplish is reserving that which is not evident in the instrument. To make an instrument that appears to do a thing while reserving all rights related to it without prejudice is to commit fraud or at the very least the appearance of fraud. These matters have been consistently well ruled by the courts and are therefore well established in law.
Myth 13:
The nation's name is the “united States of America” not “The
United States of America”:
(This one is best viewed in full screen mode)
People that have been romanced with patriot mythology often spell the nation's name with a lower case “u” in “united States of America”. This comes from the fact that the promoters of this myth are allegedly looking for solutions to what is going wrong in our nation and when they read the Declaration of Independence they read its title,
Obviously, the “u” in united is not capitalized.
They also note from the last paragraph of the Declaration, “We, therefore,
the Representatives of the united States of America,”
Again, the “u” in united is spelled in lower case. Thus
the myth.
To solve this myth we only need to go to simple English grammar.
Though titles cannot be used to define meaning, this title was plainly written
as a self defining statement.
Let’s dissect its meaning:
First note that the Great emphasis was shown with large bold letters on the
words, The unanimous Declaration, and, States of America,
while its authors minimized by comparison the words, “of the thirteen united”.
Note also that the function of each word is as follows: “the” is an article (the first one is capitalized because it was the first word in the title), all of the other words with capital letters are Proper nouns, “unanimous”, “thirteen” and “united” are all adjectives and “of” is a preposition.
Further, in the last paragraph of the Declaration we note that the language pattern remains the same as in the title:
Yet, they use another device to clarify their meaning using the same calligraphic writing style on “We, therefore,…united States of America”, emphasizing their meaning. The most unique grammatical usage here is the word, “Assembled”, which would be a past tense verb but they capitalized it, changing it to proper noun usage (a nominalized verb). This usage implies that there is a proper noun nature to their Assembly (a finite person, place or thing able to function of its own authority). They plainly stated they were assembled for the causes shown in the Declaration to that point, by and through their Representatives (proper noun usage—capitalization shows each Representative has the State's sovereign authority to act) in General Congress, Assembled (proper noun usage—capitalization) these States united with one voice on the American continent, telling King George go home, your contracts are negated by your bad acts. Notice also, they are assembled in this General Congress, which implies they are normally separate Sovereigns, for this purpose assembled, and that they intend to formally assemble as one nation through their efforts. In other words, a single nation had not yet formally been formed with any written constitution as the United States of America, yet these separate States are united in their support of this Declaration of Independence.
Now historically notice, as is evidenced in the Declaration, that these 13 separate States came together, not as colonial parts of Great Britain but as independent sovereign States united for a cause.
Can the usage in the Declaration of the term “united States
of America” be properly or reasonably interpreted as the name of the nation?
Absolutely not. That is an impossible interpretation considering History,
considering the English language and considering the document itself.
Think about it.
How could it possibly be the name of the nation itself when the title states
that there are 13 voices speaking with one voice through this Declaration.
How could it possibly be the name of the nation when the English language requires,
Proper nouns (like national names) are spelled with initial Capital letters.
How could it possibly be the name of the nation when those 13 separate States
first documented their national formation under their Articles of Confederation,
which was not formed until 16 months later on, November 15, 1777.
It therefore cannot be the name of the nation.
The name of the Union of States was formally documented in said Articles of Confederation, wherein that confederation of States took upon itself the name of The United States of America with these words, “The Stile of this Confederacy shall be “The United States of America”.”
Finally, if you look as Thomas Jefferson's rough drafts you will see that he did not use the above grammatical style in vain and in his mind and heart the name of the Nation was already cast as, “The United States of America”. The following is a copy of Thomas Jefferson's rough draft title to what became the Declaration of Independence:
The following is a copy of Thomas Jefferson's rough draft of the beginning of the last paragraph of what became the Declaration of Independence:
We certainly hope that this helps you understand the truth about the name of our country. Still most myths are based on a truth. The part of this myth that is true is the part where those following this myth understand that the entity people perceive as government is not our government as it was organized in our national Constitution. That entity is in fact a private foreign corporation as was shown above.
Myth 14:
I rescinded my Social Security number, or I rescinded some other contract signature
It is impossible for you to “rescind” ‘your’ “Social Security number”.
First of all, as described above in Myth 2, the “Social Security number” is not “yours” so you cannot rescind it.
Second, involvement with Social Security Administration, in most cases, is contract based. The purpose of forming a contract between two or more parties is to bind the parties related to it to the contract to the terms and conditions of the contract. If I was a farmer contracting for harvesting of my crops, I would first find an available harvester and contract with them to timely harvest my crops. The contract would include a limitation that the harvester needs a months notice if I want to cancel the harvest for any reason. So now it comes to two weeks before the harvest and my crops are destroyed by a hail storm but I have no act of God clause in the contract. What happens when I tell the harvester not to come? He says that he will try to sell the time to someone else but that if he cannot he will still have to bill me for the harvest because I am not canceling before the one month deadline. I rescind my signature from the contract and refuse to pay.
What happens when the harvester takes me to court for specific performance on the harvest contract? The harvester presents the contract to allow it to speak for itself. Then he presents my affidavit of rescinded signature to prove that I believed that my signature existed on the contract or I would not have attempted to rescind it. The court rules in favor of the Contract for the following causes: the proof of my intention to be bound (signature) to the contract was proven by my attempt to rescind my signature; I knew the risks of potential acts of God that could destroy my crops yet I knowingly and willingly entered into the contract without an act of God exclusion; the contract's terms speak for them selves. Nothing I could say or do would free me from the terms shown here. The contract is valid and must be paid.
This little fictitious scenario is exemplary of any contractual obligation situation wherein a person attempts to rescind their signature. In the Mythology regarding this point people argue that they were not fully informed as to the true nature of the contractual liability and therefore their signature was not valid. They allege that the other principle of the contract withheld information in order to perpetrate a fraud; further, they cite the limitation that one cannot sign without knowing willing consent and if they had known the true nature of the relationship they would never have signed the instrument. Or, they allege that the contract was created before they were born and that no person under eighteen years old can enter or be entered into a contract because they do not have the legal capacity to agree to enter and be bound by contract.
Though all of these alleged causes to rescind sound reasonable and are supportable with law, the fact is their application is foolhardy.
Note the other parties position:
The Social Security Administration's operation and intent is fully disclosed
publicly with full notice and as such was available prior to your participation.
Therefore, if you did not do due diligence in your discovery to understand your
participation and the obligation to the same once you were involved that is
not their problem nor is it cause for eliminating the contract's liability.
Further, if the contract was made by a guardian while the named party was underage,
they continued to participate under the contractual liability when they came
of age which participation was a knowing willing consensual signature act binding
the party to the contract without right to rescind.
The Bottom Line: if a person did not believe that their signature was valid, why would they attempt to rescind it? The only thing rescinding such a contractual obligation does is prove the person’s signature on the contract.
Myth 15:
The Second Amendment protects the personal right to keep and bear Arms
We have never seen a Supreme Court case alleging a Second Amendment Right to personally keep and bear arms prove successful. There was a case that stated that a shotgun was not a Militia type weapon so it was not protected under the Second Amendment secured rights. Remember, there is no such thing as a Constitutional Right and if you do not know what your rights are, you don't have them.
If one understands the English language, the Second Amendment of The Constitution of the United States of America states, “A well regulated Militia …shall not be infringed.” Through the use of a ‘comma phrase’ the amendment also recognizes that such a Militia is “necessary to the security of a free State” and it so recognizes, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”. But, what is being stated about the right of the people to keep and bear Arms? Is it that it shall not be infringed at all or is it that the right is intrinsic to, “A well regulated Militia”? We would suggest that, as a matter of English language rules, the function of such ‘comma phrase’ structure sets the meaning to be the latter. Therefore, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is intrinsic to the necessity of the existence of such a Militia. This is why the United States Supreme Court rulings are consistent in that the Second Amendment secured right is relevant only to the necessary existence of the Militia. Therefore, when a person stands to proclaim that they have a right to keep and bear Arms not recognizing the related Militia necessity, they most often loose their case.
We are not saying that the private Right to keep and bear Arms is not protected. We are simply stating that Right is not stated in the Second Amendment. That right is reserved from governmental control in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Further, if one were to go back to the notes of the First Congress’ deliberations on the Second Amendment one would find that initially the Amendment was written to include such personal Arms rights but the Delegates determined that if they mentioned those rights eventually they would get legislatively controlled. They chose to change the Second Amendment to exclude mentioning such private rights thereby excluding them wholly from governmental legislative control by leaving them under the blanket protection of the Ninth Amendment.
Myth 16:
The government is violating the Constitution by taking guns people carry in public
The first thing to notice about this myth is that it presupposes the body taking the guns is “government”. At this point we must remember, the prevailing power of governance addressed here as "government" is not our government; but is rather a private foreign corporation commonly known as “The United States Government” (Corp. U.S.), which was created by our government under The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 or it is some entity created under Corp. U.S.’ control. Though one may register to vote within that private foreign corporation’s elections and come under their governance through that act, such a registration does not make that corporation our nation’s government. This must be remembered before we go on to discussing gun rights and how such corporate governance contractually removes them.
To address the common misunderstanding at the core of gun right legislation today we present the following:
First, Congress (Corp. U.S.’) recognizes today’s Militia is the Army controlled National Guard and under the premise of Lincoln’s 1863 emergency Conscription Act et al. (still in effect today) they believe that there is no necessity today for a general people’s militia, which makes the Second Amendment's reservation of the people's posse comitatus militia related right to keep and bear Arms moot. They believe that today the concept of posse comitatus is passé and unnecessarily dangerous. For that reason, Congress today passes statutory controls over licensed gun ownership and use. These controls are not legally or lawfully functional over private ownership (as was again proven in Sheriff Richard Mack’s Supreme Court case against the enforceability of the Brady Bill). But, such controls are functional over the contracted gun use of registered gun owners.
This is the underlying limitation that swelters beneath a recent action reported to us in Denver, Colorado where a political candidate carried a gun to a rally as a political statement and was charged and convicted with a gun carry violation. In the newspapers and radio commentaries attorneys alleged that the Constitutions of Colorado and the United States were abandoned because Denver is under home rule. That is not a correct appraisal of the matter. Home rule does not eliminate proper application of a State's constitution or of the Constitution of the United States of America. Even under Home Rule the constitutions are properly applied under the State’s Enabling Act, as are the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
The fact that the gun itself was evidence in the case and that the man carrying it was a registered owner of the same binds that man to the local rules by contract. Wherefore it is well ruled that his private rights, though lawfully secured, are not applicable in this case because he voluntarily contracted to a higher standard via his registered gun ownership and use.
The key to this apparent dilemma of contractual liability is to secure Arms that do not come under registration requirements.
Further, on that point, any company controlled by legal (contractual) requirements limiting their sales through federally registered arms dealers cannot lawfully produce guns that are not so sold, therefore any gun produced by such a manufacturer that is not contractually registered is likely unlawfully owned and can therefore also be controlled (thus if the candidate above had not registered the gun he could legally be in nearly the same situation.
Obviously, the difficulties here are the not matters of law, and with this information it is very likely that the judge in question acted properly because the questions before him were not questions of Law, they were questions of equity (fairness according to contract), in which case the home rules and respective contractual application prevail.
The difficulties here are the people’s understanding of Law and their own contractual limitations. To discover what those are and what their remedies are—to simply and easily return to our self controlled lives secured by our God given inherent constitutionally secured rights—outside of any encroachment from such enforcement you can check out The Way of Kings™.
Myth 17:
The government is trying to eliminate gun ownership:
Unlike the other myths presented and debunked on this page, this myth may not be a myth in accord to its own words, however, we believe the alleged purpose of this process is a myth with a far more diabolical intention that must be disclosed. All indicators except outcome indicate that the political intent of the powers that be is to limit and control gun ownership and use. The real intent is to flood the nation with non-automatic, low round semiautomatic and manual guns preparatory to an intentionally activated civil revolution. People believe the government wants to eliminate guns because that is what we hear from the media. The simple fact is, if you ask people if they can believe what they hear and see in the media, they will tell you that you cannot. Still, the media promotes removal of gun ownership from the people of our nation. But is that really their intent—if it is, why has their campaign caused more people to buy guns and why are guns more available today than ever. In the last few years (since the first Brady Bill), gun ownership has risen to over 100 times the guns that were owned before the gun control scare. If Corp. U.S. was really wanted to get rid of the guns, do you think you would still have them (except stored secretly)? Reports indicate that, under the threat of gun control, in the last ten years more guns have been produced and sold to Americans than all of the guns that were ever owned before in the history of our nation. Using this outcome as evidence, it indicates the powers that be are doing what they are doing to cause the people of America to arm themselves while they limit the capability of those arms. That is certainly the effect of their campaign, regardless of popular opinion. Thus we call it a myth.
Put that together with the fact that the verdict of the United Nations conference on World Population in Cairo was that they need to reduce the World’s Population to around one billion people! That was a call to eliminate over four billion people! That call was made in 1994 with a global population of estimated at five and a half-billion. To maintain zero population growth a nation has to have a birth rate of at least 2.1%. The current birth rate in the United States is .8%. These figures spell serious economic difficulties in ten years if something does not change.
Then consider the almost annual events that take place on the anniversary of Great Britain's attack on Lexington and Concord, April 19th—the United States Government admits its representatives: attacked and killed (murdered) the Randy Weaver Family at Ruby Ridge, Idaho without just cause; attacked and killed almost the entire parish of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Waco, Texas (the Branch Davidians); provided the explosives and participated in the first World Trade Center bombing, eight people were killed and 1,000 were injured; further, evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates they blew up their Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (though they have not admitted their participation in that yet); and there is a massive cover-up now going on as to their involvement in the WTC and Pentagon attacks from September 11th, 2001 (the big question is how could an airliner hit the Pentagon and not break the windows where the planes tail and wings would have to have hit). Interestingly enough that attack against the people of our nation took place on “911” (their emergency code). Then compare the result of these acts of terror against our people and notice the outcome. Notice Corp. U.S. creating a “security envelope” around the people violating your God given inherent rights secured to you by our Constitution; notice the exact same pattern of events that took place in Hitler’s Germany as he started W.W.II and instituted his SS (a.k.a. Homeland Security). Compare that to Bush instituting his HS (Homeland Security Police). We expect they will continue to tighten their “security” grip until they destroy our economy causing starvation and rebellion. We expect that is their intent—to cause a revolution that will reduce our nation to a similar status with any third world power so they can institute their global new world communistic order control with 4,000,000,000 less people. After all, isn’t that what they already agreed to do in their Cairo Conference? It should be no surprise that they may be working to that end.
Having stated all of that, please remember this point is not factually a myth. This response is simply conjecture, a theory based on reviewing the outcome we have before us—the stuff mythology is made of. We presented this merely as food for thought—presented to cause a person to notice one of the ways of debunking mythology is to notice outcome. Regardless of what a person says, “by their fruits ye shall know them”. When we see a power of governance doing things that cause people to start, the Patriot Movement, the Tax Protest Movement and the Legal Research Movement, awakening in our nation, it is evident the people are working hard to discover the truth about what is happening. This question regarding the purpose of Corp. U.S.’ gun politics is not really a myth, it is a question and a warning, where the evidence is not all in yet. We presented it here to set a standard of review, watching and preparing for any outcome. Corp. U.S. has legislatively recognized for years that the people of this country are their enemies. It should be no surprise that there is a possibility that they are working to cause us to rebel against them so they can quash the rebellion and with it your right to private property and with that our nation. To that end we remind you, the King of Kings has said in this war we cannot raise conventional weapons of war and win. In this war we must first get ourselves right personally and spiritually, we must repent and we must prepare by learning who we are and by learning the Law. Then we must win by applying the Law. This is the only way we can be sure to win our nation back legally, lawfully and with our lawful system intact secured and operating explicitly according to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Myth 18:
The State owns your car:
There are those that would have you believe the State owns your car. This myth is usually promoted by those who would like to convince you that the only way you can be safe is to buy something from them that will protect you from the State's ownership of your car. The alleged proof the proponents of this myth would have you accept is either their allegation that the State’s name on the license plate tag shows who owns the car or they allege that when you give the state the original title to the car you are conveying the car to them and they become the owner any you become the permitted user. Both of these allegations are false. The simple fact is the State has no ownership interest in your car at all. To debunk this myth takes only the simplest understanding of ownership and contracts.
First let’s look at ownership:
The question is, “How does one acquire ownership?”
Ownership is usually acquired through purchase. A purchase is made through
contract, which is defined by a transaction with a giver, a receiver, a valuable
consideration over time and acceptance. Such relations are demonstrated
in the related documentation. When you go to the store and buy a bag of
oranges you pick out the oranges, take them to the check-out stand and pay for
them and the store gives you a Title (receipt) for the oranges. The transaction
for the car is not much different, except that the Title document may be a bit
more complex. In most car ownership transactions there is a contract for
sale, which, when completed and fulfilled, is your Title to the car, just like
the receipt was for the bag of oranges. It shows the cars previous
owner sold the car to you for a value that was agreed upon and exchanged.
Some people will try to tell you that the Manufacturer's Statement of Origin
(MSO) is the title to the car; it is not. The MSO is the car manufacturer's
statement that gives the buyer notice of the individual components of the car,
their sources and of the proof that the manufacturer was the lawful owner of
the components they used to put the car together. In other words the MSO
is the instrument the manufacturer uses to show that they have the lawful title
to the car because they manufactured it from components they owned. Some
people think that the “Certificate of Title” is the Title. It
is not. The Certificate of Title is simply a certificate that represents
the existence of a Title Insurance agreement over the car. It simply certifies
that the state has used due diligence to cause you to demonstrate that you lawfully
acquired the car and that their records do not show any defects in the ownership
of the car. They certify that they will continue to secure the ownership
of the car to you and they will use due diligence to secure that the car will
not change ownership in their system in an unlawful manner. It is purely
Title Insurance.
Second let’s look at the contractual relation:
In the process of securing a Certificate of Title for a car, there is nothing
that states you are conveying ownership of the car to the State and there is
nothing in the code that indicates any such thing. Wherefore, the alleged
transfer of ownership from you to the State is false. The state does not
own your car.
Myth 19:
The Constitution is an unnamed
document:
On first glance this myth seems irrational because we have all seen the title of the document at its head every time we see the Constitution. That is because, at the head of the Constitution virtually every publisher places a title like: “The Constitution of the United States of America”, or, “The Constitution of the United States”, or, “The United States Constitution”. Then again, we might notice the publishers do not agree as to the name of the Constitution. So, when someone shows us the original document and that it did not have a title before the enlarged bold first three words of the preamble, “We the People”, it seems like maybe we were wrong in thinking its title (name) was one of those names the publishers always use. Judge for yourself with this view of the original work:
And thus we become converted believers in yet another bit of mythology.
Following our standard of review, that being, never believe anything just because anyone says it or shows evidence that on first review seems right, rather first do your own research and prove the facts with two or three evidentiary fact based evidences. In this case we turn again to the original documents and read the preamble, which is,
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
So, when you read it did you notice the preamble plainly named the Constitution?
We repeat: “do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Therefore, the name of the Constitution, in fact its title, is: Constitution for the United States of America.
It is not a myth that debt can be eliminated; it can be. All you have to do is stop creating more debt and pay off what you have already. Still, there are occasions when some unplanned event catches people in a situation where they no longer have the means to meet their obligations. That is where this myth begins as an interesting concept many people are dissuaded by. The myth alleges that the bank is loaning you your own credit, which would be illegal, if in fact that is what they were doing; and there have been cases where that is exactly what the bank did. That is exactly what makes this myth so compelling. The problem here is that such cases are rare; thus the myth that “all bank and credit card loans are loaning you your own credit” is false. In most cases, the bank making the loan, according to the terms and conditions of the lending agreement, issues the loan based upon their average daily asset base. Generally, they only use 80% of that base to capitalize (fund) their loans and your particular loan cannot be part of that base. That being the case it is impossible for your loan to be the bank loaning you your own credit.
Ten years ago we actually saw some cases where banks processed loan applications with a promissory note for the loan amount, which the bank then placed into their assets prior to issuing the loan, which is not lawful. In such a case, the myth of debt elimination is no myth at all. We recall the case where Rick Schram (Right-Way Law) fought this in court and won because the bank could not show that was not what they did. At that time, some banks were putting the cart before the horse in such an unlawful way.
Today, it is rare to find a bank that has a promissory note included with their loan application documents. If your loan had one it would be wise to make sure that your bank did not get the cart before the horse. Such is not the case with most loans. Most bank loans today are lawfully issued; in fact to avoid the appearance of wrong doing in such cases today most banks do not process granted loan collateral security instruments until at least the day after the loan is funded. Such a delay practice insures that the bank could never be accused of loaning you your own credit.
There are many marketers of legitimate debt elimination packages available. Some such packages include a process of debt consolidation, working with current lenders to negotiate reduced payments and re-marketing a new single loan that can bring a person’s total monthly payment down to a manageable amount; if that is not available to a person’s situation they may suggest bankruptcy, which also can eliminate debt.
Then there are the fraudulent debt elimination package promoters. These are those that claim that all bank loans were based on loaning you your own credit. As we have shown above, such loans have occurred, and that is exactly why such package marketers can present a compelling show to a person in trouble with their debt. Such packages can be quite expensive as well, and are usually progressive in their costs, so the person in debt can afford them. The United States government’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Enforcement & Compliance Division has issued a letter to all banking institutions warning them of such schemes. You can see by following that link that the Comptroller of Currency has marked: “America’s Advantage”, “eliminatemortgages.com”, “goodbyemortgages.com”, “mortgageelimination.net”, “the7thfire.com”, “Financial Dynamics”, and “remedywithredemption.com” as organizations that market fraudulent debt elimination packages. We have no experience with any of these organizations and have no intention of investigating them, because that would be contrary to our purpose.
Where we have no contest with legitimate debt elimination packages or processes (as noted two paragraphs above), we have two significant problems with the other so called debt elimination processes: First, to accept such a process a person has to be willing to violate their willingly made promise to pay, thus sacrificing their honor, perhaps eternally (that is too high a price to pay); and Second, in most cases the process attacks the lender for something the lender simply did not do, violates the contract and significantly places the borrower in jeopardy. For these reasons we are extremely skeptical of such so called debt elimination packages and programs; they usually cost far more than they are worth if they have any value at all.
To debunk the myth, we review a bank's legitimate lending process. Lending banks are in the business of using their average daily asset base as the basis for loans. Their average daily asset base is derived at least from both hard asset holdings and collateralized assets. No one seems to have anything against them utilizing 100% of their hard assets as the basis of loans so we will not look at that part of the process. Where the question comes in is the banks use of collateralized assets, especially their use of their accounts receivable as the basis of loans. When a lending bank originates a loan, they originate a new account receivable; that is to say, they have a collateralized right to receive payments according to the terms of that account and they are allowed to use 80% of the value of such accounts as an asset basis for originating new loans. The concern is that if the bank were to use your own loan as part of that asset base for initiating your loan, that would be lending you your own credit, which is not lawful. That is exactly why most banks today do not process new loans as new accounts receivables until after the loan funds. As you can see if the loan is not processed as an account receivable until after it funds, it could not have possibly been a part of the consideration for granting you a loan.
One final note on this point. There have been banks that have unlawfully granted loans where the basis of the loan was the person’s own credit and it can happen today. There are also people that discover such, knowingly and willingly take out loans with the intention of thereafter suing the bank for fraud and thus getting the funding with no obligation to repay. Knowingly participating at any level with such a fraud is criminal fraud, regardless of whether you are the borrower or the lender. Wherefore we would avoid all such debt elimination processes. Though it is true a monetary system based upon debt can creates paper giants in the banking industry and we can argue the honor of such legal business relations; still, loans based on someone else’s credit are lawful in the United States banking system and challenging such banking processes in the courts is a losers game wisely avoided.
The original author of the actual “National Economic Stabilization and Recovery Act” (hereinafter "NESARA"), which was actually a group of proposals authored by a Dr. Harvey F. Barnard (died, 2005) in 1996. Dr. Barnard published several proposals and sent them to congress, but they were not well received. So in 2000, he published the NESARA on the internet followed by his formation of "The NESARA Institute" in 2001. A student of 'JZ Knight', Shaini Goodwin (username: the "Dove") got wind of the proposals and started the bogus rumor of the , “National Economic Stabilization and Recovery Act of 2000”, which she also nicknamed NESARA; her bogus rumor is the myth we address here.
The fact remains, the author of the proposals until his death and the Institute he founded continue to contest that the NESARA proposals have never even received a tracking number as a proposed bill before Congress — in fact, according to the Institute’s website, as of March 23, 2008, the Institute is still looking for a congressman to sponsor the bill.
Nonetheless, look out for the pied piper known as "the Dove" and her so called, "White Knights". Since 2003, we have been hearing about their bogus NESARA, though its story is shrouded with clandestine secrecy. People keep asking us about it, wondering if it is real. In almost every case, they sound like they believe in NESARA as if it was a wonderful thing. We are amazed at that reaction. We suggest people who feel that way should go back and restudy our Constitution and its history, then check out the facts regarding NESARA.
When we first heard about it we noted the apparent fraud of NESARA in the first two elements reported to us:
First, though Congress can hold closed sessions, neither The United States of America’s Congress nor Corp. U.S.’ Congress were ever given authority to act in secret; to the contrary, the nature of their authority requires their acts must be public; and,
Second, can you truly imagine Bill Clinton or George Bush would ever sign an Act that would effectively put them in prison, likely for the rest of their lives; can you imagine that of Congress? Can you even imagine any of these people would voluntarily give up their positions of power and profit, let alone the allegation that they would admit their personal involvement in a treasonous fraud upon the public? We cannot. We find the suggestion of such a thing is ludicrous.
In 2004 the NESARA (.us) website alleged it will be announced by May 5th, 2004 of course through February and March they were saying that it would be announced by March 22nd, 2004, so their lies continue. Their e-mail delivers a, “NESARA Announcement” regarding a case allegedly before the World Court. Certainly people must realize the World Court has no authority over The United States of America. To give it such authority would mean that court has authority over the sovereign nature of this nation of sovereigns and over our personal and individual sovereignty — Only God has that authority (many are foolish enough to believe they can privately contract away their sovereignty (see, Myth 6), of course they will eventually learn the fallacy of that when they account for it before their maker).
We have done the research. Though there is a lot of talk about NESARA, the facts fail to support the bogus rumors. Their bogus NESARA web site alleges that it:
We need go no further.
The allegations of the NESARA (.us) web page’s, too good to be true, “Benefits” and the bogus alleged “History” pages are staggering! The underlining message adds to the threat shown above, a secret regime operated under the threat of death sponsoring “controlled elections” (like USSR—VoteScam on steroids), oh yes and let us not forget the pipe dream of more benefits, real money—free for the taking, world peace, world prosperity, and free energy!
Even looking at the Wikipedia article on NESARA will burst the bogus rumor’s bubble. We have a hard time understanding why anyone would ever fall for this myth. We hope people will soon wake up to the truth. You can help by referring people to this article on our website and by helping people learn about a real solution to restoring our nation. We can reseat our original jurisdiction government. You can begin to resolve your problems with IRS and with the Corp. U.S. monetary and banking systems by studying the next myth in this series, Myth 22.
We hope people will wake up to NESARA before the ride is over and discover the truth before it is too late.
Myth 22:
The combined myths regarding: “The Creature From Jekyll Island”, Money, IRS tax protestor causes and the allegation of the Russo video, “Freedom to Fascism”
The release of Aaron Russo’s documentary Freedom to Fascism warranted addressing this topic as a myth. We hope this topic continues to inspire support for learning the truth about what is happening in our country today and rallies support for reseating our original jurisdiction government in every State of this Union of States.
When you finish reading this topic you will understand the following statement is correct:
“The myths we address here include one that debunks most of the Tax Protestors’ favorite arguments and one about Federal Reserve Notes popularized by Ed Griffin’s book, Creature From Jekyll Island, which alleges, The Federal Reserve Bank prints money out of nothing (with no backing or value). Though it may seem preposterous, the simple fact remains, the Federal Reserve System has nothing whatsoever to do with either ‘money’ or ‘our government’.”
Little or no prerequisite knowledge was needed to understand any of the myths presented in this list before this one; however, your understanding of this myth requires your understanding of each of the following seven points. Thus, understanding this myth requires study. To simplify that study, we linked each element of fact and or history in the list below to information you can use to research the facts and prove each point for yourself. Each of these links will open a page in a new window; so, you can review the information there, then close that window and return to this page to continue with this topic as your guide until you come to the end where you will understand why most of the tax protestors claims are wrong and why what the Federal Reserve does with their notes (FRN’s) is not fraud; though, it is not likely what you thought either. We hope you enjoy the journey and learn the truth, so that you can apply it.
Each of the following subtopics adds to the previous one; therefore,
you need to follow each link in sequence before you continue with the next point.
If you did not follow the links in each of the previous seven points and read those topics in sequential order, stop now, go back and read each of those seven points in sequential order before you continue with this presentation.
If you understand each of the seven elements listed above you now know the basics of how federal reserve notes work and the true nature of the “New Deal” Corp. U.S. created through the Social Security Administration system. If Aaron Russo or Ed Griffin understood these facts they would not ask for an active rebellion against Corp. U.S., rather they would be telling the people, ‘We need to reseat our original jurisdiction government.’ Exactly like Team Law is doing. As their video suggests, we the People can unite, but not on principles of rebellion as they imply; rather, on the principles of law and history that show us how to reseat our government in accord with law.
At the onset of this myth we stated that we would address two myths here: one that debunks most of the Tax Protestors’ favorite claims and the one about Federal Reserve Notes popularized by Ed Griffin’s book, Creature From Jekyll Island. Again, if you understand the factual and or historical elements listed in the seven points above, you will realize that list already did that. Still, we did point those out directly; so, follow along and discover the truth:
Finally regarding those myths we note, some people will read this and find it so fantastic that it extends beyond their current belief system. To them we say, it is not our responsibility to convince you of anything; rather, it is your responsibility to learn the truth and to apply it. It is impossible to learn the truth without studying the actual facts and laws related to the matter; thus, we suggest, if what we have presented seems beyond belief, go back and study the seven points we presented above—research their accuracy for yourself.
We find that before people fell prey to the myths we debunked on this page, most of them believed the stories they were told in public school, at work and in the media—thus, they passed the stories on as factual to their friends and families. Then something happened; and, some of the people began to learn, from third party sources, of conspiracy theories and or fraud and collusion in our government. When they first hear those stories they often did not believe them, but as time went on, and they saw more evidence, they became thoroughly convinced. Once they became convinced even when they performed their own studies they only saw the same things. Still, all of that does not make the stories true. The problem is, everywhere they go to stand for that which they believe in, they find opposition even in the law. We suggest, the problem is not in the law but in their understanding of it. We suggest to them, go back over what we presented here and take a chance to do your own first-hand study. Check out the facts, the history and the law and test it for yourself against what we presented here; discover if it is not true.
Then, give it one more test. Before you study, read James 1:5 from the New Testament, and invoke that test upon it as well; then after you study, do the same. Finally, when you learn the truth, share what you learned with everyone by telling people where you learned the truth. Don’t try to describe it all to them, they may find it all too fantastic to believe. Simply send them to this website (teamlaw.net) and point them to Myth 22, reminding them to read each of the six points in sequential order, then have them return and report what they learned. Each time you talk to them after that, ask if they read the myth. If they have not, let them know they are really missing something, and let it go at that until the next time you talk and the subject comes up.
We would be done with this myth at this point but we perceive a far greater danger in Russo’s documentary, Freedom to Fascism. It calls for unified active resistance against Corp. U.S. The problem with such resistance is, that is exactly what Corp. U.S. seems to want. For Corp. U.S. to actually become the government of this country they need to either fully disclose the truth and let the people vote on them becoming our government or they need to conquer the country in a war.
There is no doubt that Corp. U.S. has been involved in some grievous acts against our country and its people, the likes of which have spawned many ‘conspiracy theories’: the April 19th events like, the attack on the Weaver family in Ruby Ridge, Idaho; the destruction of the Seventh–Day Adventist Retreat in Waco, Texas; the demolition of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; the February 26, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center; the September 11, 2001 events at the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon. Responding to such theories reasonable people ask, “Why would the government do such things?” A reasonable response is:
“Corp. U.S. is not our government, rather it is a private foreign corporation that in 1933 statutorily legislated that the people of the United States of America are enemies (Trading with the Enemy Act), and second, the last two steps (planks) of the general plan for a communistic government takeover of a great nation are:
This last step would give Corp. U.S. the cause to step in with ‘Homeland Security’ forces and lock down the cities. It happened in Germany, Poland, Russia and China. The only element currently missing from such a takeover of our country is the people have not actively revolted. Thus, we expect Corp. U.S. would welcome such a plan of active resistance as their best excuse for a Homeland Security lock down and takeover of our country, in the name of security. The one thing we must not do is give any cause for such an action.” There are only two lawful ways for Corp. U.S. to become the actual government of this great country:
A wise martial arts instructor once said, “The best art of defense is to not be there.” In other words the best way to win the fight is to not fight — take up no weapons of violence. Instead we must learn the truth and apply it to lawfully take our country back. At the numbered point "5." above, we showed how Corp. U.S. legally and lawfully owns virtually all of the private property that was acquired using a Taxpayer Identification Number. We also showed how Corp. U.S. legally and lawfully controls virtually all businesses owned in the United States of America that have a Taxpayer Identification Number. Now, we ask that you look at the definition of Communism. And, while you remember Corp. U.S. is still only a private foreign corporation today, imagine whether or not the powers that be within it or controlling it might want it to be the actual government of this country — they act as if they think they already are.
We admit, that is the scariest part about busting this myth — the truth about where we are today. At this point, again most people just want to know how they can get out of this situation. They simply want out of Corp. U.S.’ control. They want their God given Liberty and their Freedom. The problem is, they don’t know how to get it and they are not usually willing to do the study necessary to learn our history and the law so they can legally and lawfully secure their freedom. So let’s relieve the fear a little by remembering, Corp. U.S. is not our actual government, rather it is a private foreign corporation that most businesses and people have contracted with to carry out their business relations (either not knowing what they were doing or not knowing any other way to survive). Like in any other corporation, Corp. U.S. is the government within the confines of its own contractual relations; but that still does not make it the government of our country.
Unlike the other myths presented on this page, this myth also requires a solution because unlike the other myths this myth strikes near to the hearts of every man, woman, child and business in this country and effects most of the people in our world. Thus, we need to show the solution, which Team Law has already set in motion and perfected.
The last battle our country fought for freedom on this scale was the War of Independence, where Great Britain was attempting to take over the self-ruled independent governments of the sovereign people. That battle required the people to unite and form a Union. They did, and they won. They were a God revering people with a righteous cause. They were fighting on our own soil with weapons of war against the world’s strongest military force. Today, we find ourselves in a similar situation; where the world’s strongest political force already has lawful (contractual) control over our military force and to stand against it in a military battle would be foolhardy suicide for both our Constitutional Republic and our people. This is not, and we cannot allow it to become, that kind of war. Yet, that is the path the Aaron Russo documentary and Bob Schulz’s We the People Organization are pushing towards. We, the actual People, cannot allow that to happen! We do need to unite, but not in ignorance based upon third party allegations and hype directed towards a battle vested in hate.
To win our country back today the only effective weapons are the tools of our Law and of the Spirit (patterned after the teachings of the King of Kings. For those that don’t yet believe they believe in God the rest of us should continue to pray for us all and we welcome everyone’s support in the solution — this remedy is not about anyone’s religion or religious beliefs). Still, the battle before us is one just as amazing and against similar odds as our country’s founding fathers fought against Great Britain; and we should take it just as seriously even though most of the people may today be unfamiliar with Law; all it takes to remedy that and win this battle is a little study and application of the law.
We must learn our history and the law to win our country back. Learning is not enough — we must also act and follow the law to reseat our original jurisdiction government and, like our country’s founding fathers, we must live worthy of the King of Kings’ promised support. Corp. U.S. is easily controlled with law, if you know the law and follow it. This is exactly why Team Law is involved in helping people learn the law; it is also why we support The Way of Kings™, which helps people learn how to lawfully move ownership and control of assets out of Corp. U.S. and back into its rightful owner’s hands.
We directed you to the factual information that exposes and debunks the myths shown above, but it also exposed the necessity for resolving our current situation and made it necessary for you to do something to save yourself and our country. The solution is found in following the following five steps:
When this is done, the battle will be over and we will have won, but the war does not end there, it requires eternal vigilance and faithfulness; we must remain a righteous people and teach our children and our children’s children so that we never come under such subjugation again.
This battle will be expensive: we each must devote time to our own education; we must each alert our neighbors; and, whereas Team Law has so far been fighting this battle for the most part on its own, we need supportive donations to keep the battle going. To awaken the people in mass we will need to get materials distributed to the people through mass media systems. That is going to cost more than we have available so we need all we can get from anyone willing and able to support this great work. We have never before posted a request for funding like this because we want our work to remain about the work. At this time, the work we have already done is self-evident on this site and on our Open Forum, thus you can see what we have already accomplished. Now, we need to turn to the people, to you, and say we need your support. We are ready to start pushing towards the end of this battle and we need all of the help we can get. All donations are acceptable in any amount and in any means whether they come by way of mail using our order form’s provisions for donations or through PayPal or with e-gold or by whatever means. Send whatever you can spare so we can begin funding the last phase of this battle, the awakening of the people in mass.
You can find more on this topic on Team Law’s Forum.
Final Note: We believe most of these myths are self-evident, yet commonly followed. We provide this page because people following after these myths have been left impotent and financially crippled; therefore, we ask people to stop taking rumor for granted — stop trusting information, just because it sounds good; review all materials and sources you study from by checking sources for yourself. Some of the originators of these myths may have had good intentions; they may have simply misunderstood the language of law or failed to follow the facts, law, history and simple logic. We hope you continue to seek after the truth by doing you own verifying research from now on.
In the final analysis, you have to decide what you are going to do. We cannot share the intricacies of our solutions to anyone other than Team Law beneficiaries, for that reason many case sites and evidences that would otherwise prove these points beyond question are not presented here. We have only presented the basics here to provoke your own study and research and to provide you with a second logical opinion.
One of the most common comments people make about Team Law after they start working with us is, “This is the first time we were able to see the whole picture and know how to move forward.” One of the best solutions to the abundance of information out there is to follow the admonitions of the Paul, the Apostle, “That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;” and of Davey Crocket, “Be sure your right and then go ahead.”
If you would like to see more myths unraveled, report them to us on Team Law’s Open Forum.
Back to Main Do you own you Land?
Family
Ties
What
is Team Law? What are Team Law's Benefits?
How
do I become a beneficiary?
Products / Services: WARN Online
Store Other
Links
All information
on this site is provided for educational purposes only, with all rights reserved.
Use it at your own risk. Team Law does not provide legal or financial
advise.
All materials on this site are under Copyright © 1996-2005, and may not
be reproduced, except as noted, without the written consent of Team Law’s Trustee.