Body Language – Trumps Trial

we lose in court if
1. We dishonor any of the people and processes that presented on us, thereby
enjoining the issues described in the presentment so that we become bound by
the matter. We have no right or duty to deny or speak to anyone else’s utterances, and
doing so lands us in the middle of their novel.
2. We traverse and therefore contractually amalgamate ourselves and our
strawman into the court’s jurisdiction so that we endure in the flesh the results of
whatever trial or hearing might occur dealing with our strawman. It is the
strawman that appears, is tried, and sentenced, not us. By traversing, however,
the real us gets to go along for the ride and experience in reality the judgment
against the strawman.
3. We fail to discharge the charges, thereby authorizing the system to enforce
commensurate consequences on us.
4. We have no facts in evidence substantiating our position placed by a
competent witness on the court record of the case. This crucial matter is
discussed in greater detail in oneminute
5. We have not bonded the case.
Let us briefly discuss these issues:
1. We avoid acting in dishonor by accepting and returning for value whatever
presentment or charging instrument we are provided with and by not arguing,
fighting, denying, or ignoring.

2. We do not join the dispute by traversing, by which we leave our own ground
and tacitly give reality and credibility to the opponent’s claims and allegations
that are not facts but only presumptions and assumptions until we stipulate
(expressly or by dishonor). Enjoining the issues in a presentment, such as
denying allegations or charges, or saying that we don’t owe an alleged debt, is a
dishonor that enjoins us with the court’s jurisdiction and our own strawman and
creates a dispute that grants a court subject matter jurisdiction. It sucks us up
into the made-up game of imaginary disputes between fictitious entities. The
definition of “traverser” in Black’s Law Dictionary confirms the point succinctly:
Traverser. In pleading, one who traverses or denies. A prisoner or party indicted;
so called from his traversing the indictment. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition,
page 1345.
3. Whenever we (i.e., our strawman) are “charged” with something, that charge
is a bookkeeping entry of liability on the ledger and must be “discharged” by
entering a balancing, offsetting asset. Filling in the asset side usually occurs by
the loser parting with public funds of some kind, such as a check or FRNs, or
doing “community service,” or being bonded and incarcerated as the surety.
When we discharge the charges by acceptance for value, which is a Banker’s
Acceptance, we end the controversy and become the owner of the contract. Each
of us is a private banker. Under banking our acceptance and return for value
establishes the facts and makes us owner of the transaction. We then own both
sides of the deal, i.e., both the creditor and debtor side. By accepting from the
private side and providing the value from the private, i.e., substance, side we
end the dispute and remove from the equation any controversy for a court to
resolve.
4. It is imperative to understand that the admiralty/equity courts of the system
do not deal with reality, substance, and facts in evidence. They deal in
assumptions (such as unsupported claims and charges), and presumptions
(unexpressed rules by which the system operates), and stipulations (agreements
that create the “facts”). Because they are strawmen and cannot be competent
witnesses through sworn testimony, neither attorneys nor officials can place
actual facts in evidence on the record that a judge can judicially notice, such as
claims supported by sworn testimony, either through an affidavit sworn true,
correct, and complete, or testimony under oath on the witness stand in open
court, or deposition.9

9 In the celebrated “voter punch cards” incident in Florida in the Al Gore dispute with
George Bush in the last election, Gore’s attorneys introduced a batch of “voter punch
cards” as evidence for the purpose of proving that the election was flawed. The judge
never even looked at the evidence and threw Gore’s attorneys out of court. Although
the press and public were not aware of the rationale for the action, the judge’s basis for
doing what he did was that the cards were never presented to the court by a
competent witness. There had to be a witness to state that the cards came from such
and such a precinct and that the one testifying witnessed the cards being gathered up,
boxed, and transported and was stating such matters under oath. Without such
competent witness, there was nothing on which the judge could rely to substantiate
any claim that there had been tampering with the cards during the gathering and
transporting thereof. Attorneys can neither be competent witnesses nor can any
statements they make be considered testimony. They deal in assumptions, hearsay,
and dishonor. So much for high-priced lawyers!
5. Recently some people in Nebraska allegedly avoided having to go to prison for
some time by posting—at the last minute—a single-page bond. The text of this
bond, along with some explanation and comments, accompany this article.
A presumption is defined as follows:
“A presumption is a deduction which the law expressly directs to be made from
particular facts.” (Evidence Code, § 600.) And “a presumption (unless declared
by law to be conclusive) may be controverted by other evidence, direct or
indirect: but unless controverted, the jury is bound to find according to the
presumption.” (Evidence Code, § 602 et seq. In re Bauer (1889), 79 Cal. 304,
307.
The bottom line is that whenever we receive any kind of presentment, from a tax bill to
a summons/complaint, indictment, etc., our proper course of action is to accept and
return the offer for value, served by a notary on our behalf. Discharge of the obligation
occurs at the moment the offerror receives our communication. Contractual ratification
has occurred through offer and acceptance. The circuitry closes on itself, the + and –
polarities discharge, and nothing remains upon which anyone can act.
A charging instrument (presentment) is an offer, an obligation created on the public side
by inventing a new borrowing against the creditor (source of the credit) on the private
side. Your strawman is offered the opportunity to assume the obligation. What we must
understand is that:
1. Any presentment is a concocted debt on the public side created by the party
responsible for issuing the presentment;
2. Whenever you (i.e., your strawman) receive a presentment, through your
acceptance and return for value of the presentment, you can perform a
legal/commercial jujitsu by diverting the force of the presentment back on the
issuer;
3. The fabricated obligation constitutes a new borrowing, i.e., creation of more
public debt, which they wish your strawman to assume, and which you—at the
expense of your body/labor—must discharge;
4. Any presentment can be discharged by providing the offerror with the charging
instrument accepted and returned for value and utilizing your exemption as the
source of credit for discharging the obligation;
5. A presentment is not an obligation that attaches to you unless you dishonor
and do not discharge it;
6. When you proceed correctly the charging instrument constitutes funds that can
be used to make you money;
7. If the offerror does not honor your acceptance and return for value, then he is
the one in dishonor and can be made the party obligated to pay you for costs,
fees, and damages on the basis of his dishonor.
Understanding the above scenario serves greatly to remove fear10 (“False Evidence
Appearing Real”) from the equation, especially when we realize not only that the
presentment can be neutralized but that it can be turned to our advantage. The
advantages can occur not only by what might ensue from the offerror’s dishonor of our
acceptance and return for value, but by other means also.
10 So long as one is ungrounded in his own existential/spiritual position, and ignorant of what
the system is and how to deal with it effectively, fear is inevitable. This is because the system is
one of endless applications of legalized violence on the basis of fictions and frauds promulgated
by other beings. None of these paper assaults (presentments) is our creation or our
property/province concerning which we have authority to speak. They are all the “truth” and
actions of the originator, and therefore the originator’s property and domain. Unless we
understand what is happening we are in the dark having to deal with things that can destroy us
without possessing any ability to fathom and disarm them.
The catch-22 of the system is that both traversing (enjoining the issues in any manner) and
ignoring (doing nothing) constitute a dishonor guaranteeing our loss. The way out of this
“damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you don’t” double bind is to comment on the paradox. Problems
are not solved on the level of problems; they are solved by operating from another domain, or
“meta level,” which in this case is our ground and truth for which we have exclusive knowledge
and authority to speak and concerning which they have none. Now they must deal with our
world (which they cannot address and cannot enter) and from that position we require them to
“put up or shut up.” Since they cannot substantiate the truth and validity in our domain, which
is more powerful and fundamental than where they are operating, we can by so doing turn the
tables on them.
Officials, attorneys, and banks do not want to honor this process for a number of
reasons, largely because they have been making money by usurping and using our
exemption and do not wish either to be estopped from doing so or seeing us regain our
sovereignty and autonomy by asserting our standing as creditor and using our
exemption for our benefit and not theirs.
Standing and status
Whenever you receive a bill, citation, summons, complaint, indictment, etc., what you
receive is an original issue presentment. It is also an assumption—a concoction
contrived in the mind of the living being who dreamt it up—since there is no bona fide
assessment11 for the obligation. There is no commercial paperwork to support the
contractual basis upon which the alleged obligation is based.12 Remember that the entire
(colorable) system functions by fictions and frauds. There is only presumption of
assessment, i.e., color of assessment. Since the presenter of the presentment did not
attach anything of value to substantiate and support his position (hence the phrase in
some accepted-for-value documents “I did not find your check enclosed”), the document
is grounded in the imaginary. Nevertheless, it can be traced to the author of the
document and whatever strawman on behalf of which he acted to create the new debt
currency. The presenter is giving you something created by inventing a debt, and can be
transformed into something of advantage to you if you treat it correctly.
11 Any genuine assessment involves a valid contract, bearing the authorized signatures of all
involved parties, plus proof of breach of the contract by the one who is then rendered a
“debtor,” plus an accounting of the sum-certain amount owed based on a true bill that itemizes
the particular dollar amounts owed for what specific things (such as goods and services
received and not paid for, or specific performance promised and not performed), plus proof of
the authority for those trying to collect from the debtor to operate as third-party debt
collectors, plus a statement of commercial liability staked by every alleging party (anyone who
makes any bookkeeping entry or acts in the matter) to back up his claims by indemnifying
those harmed in case he is in error. Those acting in the system, such as attorneys and
government officials, have none of these prerequisites. They have only assumptions, which
become actualized in our lives by making the assumptions real through our traversing or
dishonoring.
12 The foundation of every record is the commercial paperwork, consisting of two (2) essential
elements:
1. A ledger of accounting, consisting of an itemized list of goods and services provided
by whom to whom, with corresponding monetary values indicated for each entry
backed by the contracts and records that substantiate the validity of each ledger entry;
2. Record of accountability identifying the party who takes commercial liability and
responsibility for the accuracy, relevance, and verifiability of each bookkeeping entry.
Although technically every document in commerce must be executed by/under affidavit sworn
true, correct, and complete, the commerce of the world consists of billions of people engaging
in countless commercial transactions a day. Obviously, it is impractical for the trillions of
documents involved in actual commerce to be done by taking each one to a notary to be
certified and sworn as being true, correct, and complete. Commerce, to be practical, must be
efficient, streamlined, and minimalist. The force and effect of every document, however, is
ultimately its accuracy, relevance, and verifiability combined with the sworn statement of some
living, sentient being that he takes responsibility for the validity of the document and whatever
information it contains. This must be so because every legal and commercial document involves
someone paying and someone receiving gain. Since every such document involves a potential
loss to somebody, accuracy and responsibility/accountability/liability must be inherent in all
legal/commercial instruments. Therefore, although not in actuality sworn true, correct, and
complete, all commercial documents may be enforced as if they were. Reality cannot be

cheated. No matter how fantastic and removed from reality and sanity matters become in the
phantasmagorical public domain of assumptions, derivatives, fictions, and fraud, ultimately
everything must be grounded in, and be able to be traced back to, the ground level, which is
the combination of accuracy (truth) and individual responsibility/accountability. Documents do
not write themselves—some living being writes them.
When you accept and return an offer for value, it must be remembered that the “value”
is that which you, as the real being, give to the transaction. Only the private side, such
as you, your labor, and your private accrual account—Private Treasury UCC Contract
Trust Account—which is your “exemption” as the creditor from which the credit that
creates the “currency” on the public side is derived, can have and give value. The public
side is imaginary, created in the mind, and possesses neither value, nor substance, nor
sovereignty, nor life. Public entities, such as corporations, trusts, partnerships,
businesses, estates, and everyone’s all-caps name, etc., are persons, which are legal
entities, ens legis. They are not real beings. By being creatures of the state, persons
have status, which is fictitious and legal, not standing, which pertains to real beings and
what is lawful. You, as the reality, are the substance and the source of all the public side
reflects and from which it is derived.13
Any presentment you receive from the public side is a notice of the creation of a
“charge” (open account), which remains un-neutralized unless you “discharge” it. You
discharge the charge by performing a banker’s acceptance that provides the asset/credit
that balances the liability/debit cross on the accounting ledger. You want to use your
exemption (which is inexhaustible) for this purpose. In such case you can discharge any
obligation. Anything that can be charged by creating debt against credit can be
discharged by performing an accounting offset by using the same credit.
When you accept an offer and return it for value in your real, sovereign capacity, as
creditor, you have accord and satisfaction. The fact is your autograph. You, as the
real being, are a “lawful man,” capable of bearing a bond. You possess “rectus in
curiae,” meaning “right in court,” or “standi in judicio,” meaning “standing in law.” That
means that you are capable of bearing a note. Only a lawful man can do that. So the
lawful man puts his autograph on the line, establishing the fact. Private men and women
use autographs (self-generated marks), public side employees use signatures (signs of
their juristic persona).
To understand more of the “money system” operating in the world today, we must make
a short digression into history. The Legislative Act of February 21, 1871, Forty-first
Congress, Session III, Chapter 62, page 419, chartered a Federal corporation entitled
“United States,” a/k/a “US Inc.,” a “Commercial Agency” of what was originally
designated as “Washington, D.C.” US Inc. is a corporation of the international bankers,
et al., and outside the Constitution.14 The jurisdiction of the US incorporation is private,
commercial, international, and military admiralty/maritime. Every “citizen of the United
States” is a “citizen” of US Inc. (which is a corporation, not a country), and bereft of
standing in law as well as access to genuine law (meaning “common law”) that was
accessible to Americans under their contract with the parent corporation, USA. Every
“citizen of the Untied States” is also an enemy of the state, i.e., the United States
Government, as codified in the Amendatory Act of 1933 to the original 1917 Trading
With the Enemy Act. This is codified, inter alia, at 12 USC 95.
13 A reflection may appear as real as that which it reflects, just as the reflection of a candle
gives light. We cannot, however, feel any heat from, nor burn out, the reflected flame, nor can
we grasp the reflection of the candle and walk away with it.
14 The 1871 “Constitution of the United States” of the private corporation, US Inc., is identical
to that of the 1787 “Constitution for the United States of America” except for the difference in
the 13th Amendment. In the USA Constitution the 13th Amendment is one forbidding attorneys
from holding public office. In the US Constitution the 13th Amendment is a prohibition against
slavery and indentured servitude.
In 1933 US Inc. declared bankruptcy, as publicly noticed, inter alia, by House Joint
Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933; Public Law 73-10; Perry v. U.S. (1935), 294 U.S. 330-
381, 79 L Ed 912; and 31 USC 5112, 5119. The result is that there is no money, i.e.,
real money, which is substance, such as gold and silver coin, that pays debts and is the
coin of sovereigns. There is now only the representation or symbol of money consisting
of debt created against credit (appropriate for bankrupt citizens devoid of capacity). The
credit used to create and back the debt currency is provided by us through having given
our gold in the 1930’s, and our labor ever since, to back the failed corporation. Among
many significant consequences of this are that there are now only bills of exchange,
notes, and other evidences of debt to circulate as money. All currency today is created
by signature.
When we accept and return a presentment for value, we discharge an obligation and
render the offerror devoid of claim. This Banker’s Acceptance (“BA”) utilizes our standing
in law as the creditor—the source of the credit—to discharge the obligation by using our
exemption for offset and adjustment. We become established as creditor and owner of
both sides of the transaction.
In the past we have usually sent the presentment back to the issuer ourselves. Now we
realize that it is far superior to use a notary to send it to them. The notary does not care
what is on a presentment or our paperwork, or the amount involved, i.e., whether a
document says $1.00 or $10 Billion. The only thing the notary cares about is whether
the document has a place for endorsement and a jurat, thereby justifying taking your
fee, putting your document in an envelope, and serving it on the other party, saying,
“Respond in ten (10) days.” This time period is in accord with Regulation Z, Federal
Truth in Lending, 15 USC 1601 et seq., consisting of three (3) days for mailing, three (3)
days for the issuer of the presentment to decide what he’s going to do about your
acceptance and return for value, three (3) days for return mail, plus one (1) for the day
of service, which does not count on the time clock. The total time is therefore ten (10)
days.
When we have the notary serve our acceptance and return of the presentment to the
offerror, the notary’s address is given for the respondent to send the check, remedy, or
reply to. When a respondent does not respond to the notary within the required ten (10)
days with a notice of discharge of the obligation he is in dishonor on our acceptance for
value. He has not adjusted the account and is keeping the account open and the charge
in place, continuing to cause trouble for us and make money by stealing our exemption.
When no response from the original presenter is received by the notary within the
required ten (10) days, we have the notary issue a certificate of non-response, which is
a certificate of dishonor. At this point the dishonor of the issuer of the presentment is
established on the commercial record. A notary’s logbook is an irrefutable substantiation
of the facts and admissible as evidence in any court.
The key to the notarial process is that a certificate of non-response issued by a notary is
a judgment in estoppel. The first certificate of non-response is a judgment in estoppel
on the law. The second judgment in estoppel is on the facts/money. Ideally we should
do both when dealing with a presentment, since we wish not only to discharge the
obligation but use the process to better us commercially.
We must remember who and what a notary is. Historically, the notary wrote the king’s
papers. He issued the writs. A public notary is higher than a judge. In addition, notaries
have had from inception two (2) primary functions: 1) to protest international bills of
exchange, and 2) be a bonded, neutral party who holds the commercial record and can
place evidence into a court of any jurisdiction. Thus, the notary—as the ultimate holder
of the commercial record—is higher than any judge inasmuch as no judge can act
without the record. The great value to us is that through the notary we can place
unimpeachable evidence into a court case for the record.
It is crucial to understand the following:
1. The commercial tribunals (courts) of the US and the States are in the private
equity/admiralty jurisdiction of the alleged creditors in bankruptcy, the IMF, et al.
2. As admiralty courts the tribunals deal in matters of contract in which the
defendant is presumed to have contracted (on land) to be “on the ship” where
“the captain’s word is law,” one is “presumed guilty unless proven innocent,” and
the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is not guilty (i.e., prove
a negative).
3. As equity courts, the ultimate arbiter of a matter is the “conscience of the
court,” which is how the judge happens to feel that day, and is not anything
accessible by a defendant. There is no “conclusions of law and findings of fact”
issued (since it is in equity, not law), nor are there any facts, nor does any
documentary material evidence exist established on the record of a case (an
attorney, as we have discussed, cannot be a competent witness).
4. Since these commercial tribunals function in a private admiralty/equity
jurisdiction that does not have any capacity to access law. It cannot deal in facts
(reality). It must deal on color of those things, i.e., assumptions (color of facts).
The assumptions become “facts” when both parties agree—stipulate—that they
are true.
5. You cannot invalidate one assumption with another assumption; you can
invalidate an assumption only by placing facts in evidence on the record.
6. Anyone in dishonor in any legal proceeding has forfeited his capacity to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, and must legally/commercially lose if the
other side remains in honor and proceeds correctly.
7. If both sides of a dispute are in dishonor (which is normally the case, since all
attorneys argue and dispute, as do most pro se litigants), whoever is ruled as the
winner is a function of the judge’s discretion, concerning which he has carte
blanche to proceed as he wishes.
8. If we can enter documentary material evidence as facts on the record and
require the judge to take judicial notice of that evidence, we have a platform
from which we can win, because without stipulations the other side has no
evidence (facts) to support their claims.
9. As a result of the above, it is logical to conclude that not only must we place
our evidence into court in any case in which we are involved, have the judge
judicially notice it, and act on it in a way that provides us with a win, but placing
evidence on the record and causing its existence to ensure that we prevail is the
only reason we should ever go to court or even deal with a court.
10. We must act from the beginning, and ever and always, for the purpose of
setting our evidence on the record in any case in which we might have to be
involved so that we can not only win, but—if we act correctly—make money
(perhaps a considerable amount) from the situation