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. "


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