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.

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.

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.
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.