THE NEW
"REDEMPTION PROCESS"
ACCORDING TO RWL
(posted June 2, 2003)
The
below is an article apparently stating the new "legal basis" for
the revised "redemption process". Whereas Elvick asserted that
there was a "public" and "private" side to a Social Security
account which enabled one to issue checks or drafts, the new
argument is that a closed bank account allows this.
Please note that the below asserts a false position: the King of
England in 1782 loaned the United States funds to help us during
the Revolutionary War. This is false because it was the King of
France that did so. See 8
Stat. 614.
Also, this argument relies upon the 1933 House
Joint Resolution 192. Why don't you read it. You
should also read Edwin Vieira's new book, Pieces of Eight,
to really understand HJR 192.
Before you jump on this argument, please note that some have
been criminally charged for following this bad advice. Here is
an affidavit
for a search warrant as well as an indictment
of some people engaged in the use of these "closed bank account
instruments. "
ON "CHECKS ON A CLOSED ACCOUNT"
RESPONSE TO THE FBI
By Jack Smith
The FBI contacted a woman who had written a check on a closed
account. The FBI was sent to interview the woman
because her bank that had the closed checking account called
the FBI to go and ask the woman what her intent was in writing
checks on the closed account. The woman was not
home when the FBI got there. They left a notice for her to
contact them. She sent them a letter (or fax) containing the
following. There was a presumption by her bank that she was
doing something wrong. The visit by the FBI was an
implied "charge" against her. The visit by the FBI was
actually an implied "show cause" hearing as to why she should
not be formerly brought up on express charges of some crime
involving the closed account checks she had
written. She could not make a statement in the
letter or appearance to the merits of the implied charge of an
impropriety concerning the closed account checks or else it
would be testimony and she would be the "debtor" or looser in
the matter. She could not avoid contacting the FBI
after they left the message. That would be a
dishonor which would exhaust the FBI's attempt to ministerialy
exhaust their remedies. She would be in dishonor,
and that would give witness to the presumption being true and
factual. She elected to ask questions in the letter that
became the response to rebut any presumption that she was in
any dishonor or impropriety concerning her actions with the
closed account checks. She said:
1) I accept all facts in your statement that
I have written checks on a closed account. I
accept that the account in question with the bank is
closed. [This is an "acceptance" of the implied
offer of the FBI visit- i.e., that there is a need to show
cause as to what she has been doing. An acceptance
at common law is the beginning of a CONFESSION AND AVOIDANCE
plea. In equity, the CONFESSION AND AVOIDANCE plea
is equivalent to an "ACCEPTANCE FOR VALUE". This
plea does not create a controversy. The plea is a
fiction of law that grants jurisdiction to the court by
admitting the well pled facts in the pleading so that the
court can assist you in the matter of resolving the
issue. An acceptance gives the party accepting the
matter the authority to handle the account for settlement and
closure. Now the accepting party adds one or more
new facts to the charging pleading which overcomes the
presumption of the charge by avoidance of the charging
conclusion of law.]
2) I conditionally accept for value and
return for value the presumption I have a duty to show cause
for my actions with the bank upon proof of claim that it is
not public policy of the UNITED STATES under HJRI92 to not pay
debts at law but instead to exchange consideration upon a
dollar for dollar basis to discharge a liability.
3) I conditionally accept for value and
return for value the presumption I have a duty to show cause
for my actions with the bank upon proof of claim that without
money of account (as established under Article One, Section
10, clause one, of the Constitution of the United States of
America) in circulation that the only commercial consideration
that exists is each and every person's exemption by way of a
prepaid account operated by the United States Secretary of
Treasury.
4) I conditionally accept for value and
return for value the presumption I have a duty to show cause
for my actions with the bank upon proof of claim that a person
does not have the capacity and standing to authorize the use
of his personal exemption to discharge liabilities with the
approval of the Secretary of the Treasury.
5) I conditionally accept for value and
return for value the presumption I have a duty to show cause
for my actions with the bank upon proof of claim that you have
direct knowledge that the Secretary of the Treasury or my bank
has/have issued a Certificate of Protest on any instruments
drafted by me and directed to my bank or the Secretary of the
Treasury as a fiduciary creditor and drawee(s).
I request that you please serve with me the Certificate of
Protest from the Secretary of Treasury or my bank, if one
exists on any of my drafts, so I can observe any error or
mistake and correct said dishonor, if one exists.
END OF WRITTEN LETTER!
The jist of the above communication is that
it shows the FBI investigators that you are operating under
official Public Policy set forth by the UNITED STATES when the
UNITED STATES confiscated all the lawful money of account in
circulation in 1933 and it was now impossible to pay any debts
with publicly sanctioned money under the provision of the
United States Constitution, Article One, Section ten, Clause
one. In return for the confiscation of the lawful
money, the UNITED STATES became liable to pay the debts of the
people as fiduciary creditors (agents) of the
people. Since all commercial energy in existence
comes from the mental and physical powers of the living
people, and not from corporations or government, it is these
living people who are the lenders or creditors to all of
society.
In return for the loans from the people,
the UNITED STATES keeps track of these loans from the people
by tracking the "contributions" of the strawmen- i.e. the
corporate shadows of the people, by way of what the UNITED
STATES calls the Social Security Number accounts.
Since all donations (or loans) of commercial assets from the
people to the UNITED STATES are accounted for by way of the
SSN accounting, the UNITED STATES knows at any one time how
much it owes the ultimate creditors, the living
people. Most people believe that the SSN was
created to enslave the people by making them takers of
benefits. This is false (unless you want it to be
true and demand benefits from the UNITED STATES).
Everything from the BANKRUPT public under public policy and
not under public law is told to us in reverse or
backwards. The creation of the SSN accounts was
not to make us a nation of slaves. It was to allow
the government to take our commercial energy and use it to run
the nation, while at the same time not being guilty of fraud
or theft. The government needed to account for how
much commercial energy it owed each and everyone of us, the
ultimate creditors, for our contribution.
Therefore, the SSN was to track our claims against the UNITED
STATES. We are the creditors and they are the
debtor. Therefore, we have a pre-paid account with
the UNITED STATES since we are the creditors and it is the
debtor.
The CAFR accounting is the summary results of this accounting
of keeping track of the people's contributions and earnings on
those contributions. There are two accounts.
The one account is the accounting of the first tier
contributions. This is the property contributed to the
UNITED STATES from the people of the states by way of the acts
of the governors of the states in March of 1933.
The larger asset account is most likely the earnings off of
the commercial investment of the assets contributed to the
first account. This second dealing with the
investment earnings is most likely a tontine account belonging
to the people, as long as they are alive to claim it.
After their death, their share of this account is probably
estopped with their probate.
Living people loan or contribute credits to
the UNITED STATES when they own property and register it, or
when they have income and file a tax return. You are in
commerce when you have income (i.e.- you sell the labor of the
living man for private money) or when you are an "owner" of
registered property. Title 31 United States Code
§3124 is interesting. It is titled "Exemption from
Taxation." This statute says in effect that you are not
exempt from taxation under Title 26 of the United States Code
if you sell your labor or if you own property that is
registered to any state or the united states. Notice that
Title 31 of the United States Code is the laws concerning
"money". Since there is no public law money now, and
only private money of the private Federal Reserve Bank, then
there is no ability to purchase any titles to any property
anymore. Since there is no ability to purchase
titles to property anymore with the private Federal Reserve
Notes, then one's "ownership" or property or the sale of one's
labor for private "money" has no lawful title transferred in
the exchange. Therefore one is always dealing with
a "federal" property right in any "ownership" or in any "sale
of labor for ‘money". Since one is dealing in a
property right of Congress (since they enfranchised the
Federal Reserve Bank), then one who sells his labor for
"money" or owns property is nothing more than a tenant on the
federal feudal plantation and is NOT tax exempt from the
statutes of Title 26 mentioned in Title 31 §3124 and being
outside the exemption. The tax is the rent for the use of the
federal feudal property held by the UNITED STATES in trust for
the people and franchised to the federal 14th amendment
fictions and corporations to raise a revenue for the
democracy.
There is a court case that says the same
thing. It is backward to reality, but the truth is there
anyway. The agents of the court speak as the agents of YHWH to
His people, if they will listen. Scripture says in 1 Cor
13:12: For Now [in the later days] we see through a glass,
darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part:
but then shall I know even as also I am known,'
The "glass" is a mirror that inverts the direction from left
to right. "Darkly" is the modifier that suggests
that the image from the mirror is not easily discernible even
when it is in reverse. The Court case is from the
UNITED STATES Supreme Court. "If the nation [the
man] comes down from its [his] position of sovereignty and
enters the domain of commerce, it [he] submit itself [himself]
to the same laws that govern individuals therein.
It [he] assumes the position of an ordinary citizen and it
[he] cannot recede from the fulfillment of its [his]
obligations;" 74 Fed. Rep. 145, following 91 U.S.
398. Notice that the words in the brackets have
been added by the writer. It is not in the
original decision. This case was a commercial case in which
the sovereignty of the United States was draw into
question. The Supreme Court said that when a
sovereign goes into a commercial relationship with private
money [not lawful money of account], it looses its
sovereignty. The Supreme Court was telling you
that we all lost our sovereignty in 1933 when we went into
commerce with private FRN's that did not secure title to the
goods purchased. Title remained with the "state"
under the principle of escheat. The only way to
remain sovereign is to be out of commercial activity.
It is interesting that there is something
called a COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY EXCEPTION. Black's Law
Dictionary, Seventh, states: the - term
"commercial-activity exception means: "An exemption from
the rule of sovereign immunity, permitting a claim against a
foreign state if the claim arises from private acts undertaken
by the foreign state, as opposed to the state's public acts."
Isn't this definition exactly what we said above.
If you are in commerce since 1933, you are not a
sovereign. You are not free. Prior to 1933,
you could perform a "public act" of "paying" for goods and
services with lawful money of account. In 1933 that "public
act" was suspended by federal public policy of the
bankruptcy. Now all one can do is to use a "private act"
of discharging your debt with FRN's, which are not a money and
do not purchase a title for the goods and services you
bought. Therefore, none of your acts are cloaked with
the protection of a "sovereign" anymore. You lost your
presumption of "sovereignty" because of your participation in
private commercial activity.
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.
Jack Smith, Right Way L.A.W. for THE AMERICAN'S BULLETIN
May/June 2003