Writing checks on closed accounts. part 3

Let me put this a different way. It comes out the same in the end. The UNITED STATES has been bankrupt from the beginning. It has only been in various stages of bankruptcy going from bad to worse. The Constitution was the first indicator. If you look up the word "constitution", it will give you all kinds of comfy-cozy stuff. It will make you feel good about this "founding document". If you look up the word "constitutor" you will get a changed opinion. A "constitutor" is one who passes on his debts to another by way of the constitution he writes, so it was with the UNITED STATES. It owed the debts of the Revolutionary War back in the 1770's. The States would not tax themselves to pay these debts. Congress, under the Articles of Confederation, borrowed money from the international bankers to pay these war debts. The Constitution was the means of getting the States to coinsure the UNITED STATES in order to get an extension in paying back the loan to the creditors at the end of the 1780's. The States became endorsers and co-sureties on the national loan. This cosurety was called in in 1933 when the assets of the States were turned over to the UNITED STATES to help discharge the bankruptcy. This was done because of the Constitution of the United States and pursuant thereto.

If you do not believe this, then I will give you another issue to consider. There is a principle called the Rule of 93. It relates to the Rule of 1793 under International Law. "Where a commerce which had previously been considered a monopoly is thrown open, in times of war, to all nations, by a general regulation neutrals have no right to avail themselves of the concession, and their entrance on such trade is a breach of the impartiality they are bound to observe." 2 Halleck, mt. L. 302. This rule came into existence between the Treaties of 1783 and 1794, more commonly termed the Treaty of Peace and the Jay Treaty. The first Treaty of Peace signed in July 16, 1792 recognized the debt that Congress had with the bankers of the Crown of England payable by Jan. 1, 1788, but defaulted on by Congress. This Rule of 93 states that anyone who acts in a commercial manner with one who is a debtor to another, is no longer a neutral party and stands in the place of the debtor.

This is the source of our problem today, people. The UNITED STATES and all the states are codebtors to the bankers. We, the people, were never linked directly with the obligation to discharge the debt. But when we go into a commercial activity with private "money" with the debtors the UNITED STATES and the territorial Buck Act States, then we are no longer neutral, under law, and we have come into breach of the impartiality in the commercial relationship between the UNITED STATES and its Buck Act States and the international creditor banks. By our co-commercial activity under private acts of commerce by using private credit and debt, we have become the debtors by our actions. The only solution is to get out of commerce with private federal "money".

This is where the "closed check" account becomes interesting. When the account is closed, one can access the asset side of the admiralty-maritime pre-paid account. If one cannot access the asset side, then one cannot acquire the right of the creditor to the action. The liability side is the evidence of a debt. A debtor has no remedy in an action. Dealing with open checking accounts is reserved is for "dead" entities who have no original energy. If you are a living soul, you are the source of the energy used by commerce. You are the creditor or the principle.

There is NO MONEY. It was discontinued by an act of Congress in 1933. All we have is the PROMISE to deliver money, if and when it is ever restored, which President Johnson said would never be restored again. If you believe that there is money, then you are a fool and live in a fiction as a lunatic. There are things that some people want you to believe is used "as a money". If money existed, you would not need to have "notes" and promises to pay money. How can the promise to pay money be the money you think you are getting?

The long and short is simple. You never PAY anyone any money. You hand them a due bill to promise to pay them something which does not now exist and to which those in power will not sanction. The reason is simple. If you do not have money, you can not acquire a title to any property. Therefore, all property rests in the hands of the fictitious state which owns everything and you must get permission from the state to do whatever you desire to do. This is called a democracy which is run on the commercial principles of socialism [or communism]. We, as a nation, were taken over in March, 1933, and not one citizen or slave was the wiser and objected. But who cares? The reason was stated in Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26.

The reason for our nation's current condition is not relevant to this discussion. We are interested in the problem of the woman, who in the start of this article, was involved with a visit from the FBI to inquire about why she was using closed checks on a closed checking account.

A closed account in a bank is one which allows one to go back to draft the UNITED STATES to protest the lack of remedy to the loss of Constitutional money. It requests the use of "public" policy to remedy your loss of lawful money as a living people and as a creditor of the commercial bankruptcy. By drafting with a closed account check, used in a proper manner, one can notice the Secretary of the Treasury that you request a "public act" of settlement of an account someone might charge you with under "private acts" of public policy. Using the closed check properly actually puts one in harmony with the principles of HJR 192 as set forth by Congress in 1933 as the remedy for the "creditors", or we the people. You are NOT using the closed check to purchase anything. There is no money. You are involved in an exchange. An exchange is an action between two parties where goods or services are neither bought or sold and are not gifted. Remember, there is a tax or a lawful penalty on gifting or buying and selling when the commercial system is run under foreign private acts or laws. This is the penalty stated in the Rule of 1793 whereby traders in commerce with the debtors are also treated like the debtors and lose all titles and property rights not granted by letters of Marquee (licenses and registrations), to which the party in commerce never has lawful title. He is merely a beneficiary to an implied trust with the "state" as the lawful trustee with the right of control.

When the woman in our example used a closed account check to tender a charge, she was not paying the charge. There is no money. It is a fiction and illusion to assume there is. She was merely telling the so called charging party that if they want to believe there is money, or if they want to believe that there is a charge against her straw-woman, then she will not argue with them. Why would you argue with an insane person who believes that there is money when Congress told everyone there wasn't in 1933. To argue with a lunatic who believes that there is money and that they can charge you to try to collect money which does not exist, is to become a lunatic yourself. The test in this scenario is that the controllers for the government at the high level know there is no money. They test you to see if you believe that there is still money. If you are with them that you do not owe MONEY, then you are the one who raised the factual issue of MONEY, and you must be a lunatic. Their judgments against you for money is another test to see if they can appease you, since you obviously think money exists.

So lets figure this out. If you argue about a debt payable in money, such as a civil or criminal charge against you, then you are a lunatic since you appear to believe that money exists, which since 1933 is not true. You must be crazy. If you "accept" any alleged charges that they imply are related to money [like civil and criminal charges and other commercial presentments], and you never raise the issue of money at all, since it is a fiction and illusion and you do not deal with, talk about, or argue things that are illusions and fictions, then you pass the test from the public, and you just might escape any serious judgments for criminal or civil liabilities that will be thrown at your strawman.

The way that you get out of commerce and do not use money is to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to offset and adjust any charges against your strawman by the use of an "exemption" by way of a PRE-PAID account, which links back to the CAFR accounting and your share of the living man's work energy donated to the state by way of the loans of work energy and property donations through registrations by the strawman. This PRE-PAID account has no money in it currently. It was prepaid when you authorized the state to become the trustee over it as an unselfish act of honor and duty. Since the Secretary of the Treasury is the fiduciary creditor to operate that account according to your draft, the Secretary of the Treasury is the only person who could enter a Certificate of Protest to your draft instrument seeking settlement and closure of any charge that the state might bring against your strawman as a test of your competency as a sovereign. Sovereignty means to serve, not to rule