HJR-192 of June 5, 1933 is the bond the government issued to balance the exchange to re-credit the people and is our insurance policy to stave off execution of law, which allows it to pass over us for our benefit.

The bond is on the debit side of the United States Governments ledger, which was a debited from their credit, created by the Executive Order of April 5, 1933 when they took the gold out of circulation.

Public Policy is rooted in HJR-192 and is Grace that creates our exemption.

Under Grace, the law falls away to create a more perfect contract.

Public Policy removed the people's liability to make all payments by making a contract null if it required the payment to be in substance or debt, because the people didn't have any money to pay with.

Pay and discharge are similar words but the principles are as different as Old and New Testaments.

The word Discharge is equated with paper, or even more basic, simple credits and debits, that exist on paper only, like the slate held by the agents / angels of heaven that get swiped clean when you pray.

You cannot pay a bill with a bill and you cannot pay a debt with a debt and you can't pay a debt with notes.

See corporations pay with debt instruments and we pay with asset instruments.

HJR-192 made it against Public Policy to pay with debt therefore if you didn't get a check with their demand; their order for money needs to be returned as they failed to give you the appropriated cost for production.

The one problem the industrial society has is there is no money to even credit the account with and because of that we (the creators of the industrial products) are the credit that the industrial society needs to adjust the ledger.

They need our acknowledgement of having received the charge from them to be able to discharge their duty, just like electrical currency otherwise, they have an aging accounts receivable that they cannot close without our endorsement as to the benefits that were provided.

As the operator, they need to charge us so we can ground / charge-back the account thus paying the tax.

We have to take on the charge to allow them to discharge the account, and when we give them acknowledgement by our acceptance, they can now zero the account by grounding the charge-back to where it came from (See Calendar Year & Fiscal Year) and clean up their delinquently held open books/accounts.

The catch is, we can't write off/charge off the debt because we are not in possession of the account in deficit; our fiduciary agent is in possession of the account so we must provide him with the tax return (by the return of the original offer) so the fiduciary can discharge the liability through their internal revenue service (the bookkeeper).

We don't need to make payments that are acceptable by our fiduciaries, which would entail that we made the offer; you make the acceptance and return their offer as payment.

The tangible property merely goes along with the owner of the paper because (substance/execution of a commodity) cannot be used as a method of payment in Grace/Public Policy.

Most feel that when the money was taken out of society, the people became the slaves, this is not true, the people were freed from every obligation that society could create thus freeing the people from any obligation which they may incur simply because we cannot pay a debt.

It is the more perfect contract because it operates on Grace to pay our debts after we have done all that we can.

We go as far as we can to fulfill the obligation (acceptance and tax return) and after we have done all we can, mercy and Grace kick in being our exemption to make the payment.

Under the Common Law, inherent Rights cannot devolve to a "body politic" through a corporation.

When the 14th Amendment was invoked in 1868 it was still valid under the laws of Real property.

We will be delving into Wills, because annexed to the Constitutional Trust is a will like structure.

The Founding Fathers could not legally and non-discriminately manifest ANY document of legal force without existing law authorizing it.

A trust, after it is completed and in force cannot be amended or altered without the consent of all parties in interest except under reserved power of amendment or alteration.

The method of amending may only be asserted as defined in the Trust, and when the eleven legislatures of the southern states were kicked out of office and replaced by military representatives in order for the 14th Amendment to be ratified, violated the original trust.

Preamble Religious Intent

The Word "ordain" as used in the Preamble also had relevance, "do ordain" imparted the religious significance required to bring the document within the purviews of Henry's Statute of Uses, Elizabeth's Statutes of Charitable Uses and the Statutes of Mortmain, as to make The Constitution a valid, legal document under the English Laws.

Blacks Law Dictionary: Ordain ……To confer on a person the holy orders of priest or deacon. Establish …… Found.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary: Ordain v. To set; to establish a particular office or order; hence, invest with ministerial function or sacerdotal (priesthood) power; to introduce and establish or settle in the pastorale office with the customary forms or solemnities; as to ordain a minister of the gospel.

(1) In America, men are ordained over a particular church and congregation or as evangelist without the charge of a particular church, or as deacons in the episcopal church.

Strange as it may sound, the word "ordain" conveys the idea, to this writer, that the Founding Fathers were attempting to show the King of England that they were performing ministerial functions, had established a religious society, and an estate in trust for the members of that society under The Statute of Uses, Statute of Charitable Uses, and Mortmain. This line of thought was upheld, when this writer was researching this document, by the fact that the only place that the word "Constitution" appeared under any subject was Religious Societies.

Doctrine of Elections

The doctrine of elections comes into effect when you take under a will or against the will. When we signed up for a Social Security number we elected to take under the will. (Fourteenth Amendment codicil) An Election implies a free choice between two distinct objects or subjects; however I do not recall having that freedom of choice nor the knowledge of its existence.

A. The doctrine of election in connection with testamentary instruments is the principle that one who is given a benefit under a will must choose between accepting such benefit and asserting some other claim he has against the testator's estate or against the property disposed of by the will. (73)

B. One who elects to accept the benefit extended to him by a will is bound to give effect to all the provisions of the instrument and perform the burdens imposed on him herein, including the renunciation of any inconsistent rights or claims. (74)

C. A testamentary beneficiary to elect whether to take under or against the will in case he has some inconsistent claim against the testator's estate, is personal to him. (75)

D. Acceptance of benefits "under the will" constitutes an election which will preclude the devisee from enforcing contractual rights in property bequeathed by the will. (76)

Have you noticed that when you accept the benefits of employment you are precluded from enforcing a contract for labor.

E. Creditors (The Banks)

1. "In accordance with the generally accepted principle that the right to elect for or against a will is a personal privilege(77), many cases apply or recognize the principle that such right may not be controlled by the creditors of the beneficiary; that they can claim no right or interest in the estate contrary to their debtor's election. . . . . and they have no rights in respect of a legacy or devise to their debtor if the latter has ELECTED to take AGAINST THE WILL.

(1 of 2)

>>10709277

F. What Constitutes an Election

1. A testamentary election may be express or may be implied from the acts or conduct of the beneficiary. . . . or may be evidenced by matters of record or matters in pais. (78)

2. A beneficiary faced with an election "for" or "against" a will has accepted, used, enjoyed, or entered upon or remained in the possession of money, property, or some other benefit extended him by the will tends to establish an election "in favor of the will". (79)

This rule is of course, subject to the qualification that acceptance of a benefit under a will when made in ignorance of the beneficiary's rights or a misapprehension as to the condition of the testator's estate does not operate to constitute an election.

Here we have "misapprehension as to the condition of the testator's estate". Can you see that, the Crash of 29, the Great Depression, rumors of the Bankruptcy of the United States, could intentionally create a misapprehension of the condition of the estate, in order to elicit an "election to take under the will" and receive the benefits offered by the Social Security act? Can you see that, an employer telling you that you must have a social security number in order to work is misrepresentation to force you take under the will? Can you see that, a so-called peace officer telling you that you must have a Drivers license is coercion to take under the will? Diabolical isn't it?

1. Where the money or property was received or accepted in some other capacity than that of a testamentary beneficiary, or amounted to no more than what the beneficiary would have been entitled to independently of the will such receipt or acceptance does not indicate the making of a binding election in favor of the will.

2. Acceptance of the benefit of a provision in a will does not constitute an election precluding the donee from asserting any rights he may have as promises under a contract with the testator, where the provision in the will does not appear to have been made for the purpose of satisfying the testator's obligation, but for a wholly different motive. (80)

I believe there is a contract with the testator, a covenant in fact.

G. Effect of Fraud or misrepresentation

1. Failure to make an election within the statutory period may be excused where the beneficiary was induced to refrain from an election through the FRAUD OR MISREPRESENTATION of interested parties . . . (81).

2. Two things are necessary in order that the acts (conduct of the beneficiary) relied upon will amount to an election:

a. The person alleged to have made an election must have been cognizant of his rights, that is he must have had knowledge not only of the condition and extent of the testator's estate, but also of his duty to elect between the two inconsistent RIGHTS.

b. Having knowledge of his rights, he must have intended, as shown by clear and unequivocal acts to make a choice.

1. Lack of knowledge, when accepting benefits under the will, that the provisions of the will did not fulfill the contractual obligation is a factor affecting a determination of whether the acceptance of benefits under the will constitutes an election. (82)

2. Elections procured through fraud or undue influence, or of elections followed by the failure of the provision made in the will for the electing party or the nonperformance of a condition upon which the election was made, has been widely recognized.

_________ Footnotes :

1. 80 Am Jur 2d Wills '1607, Annotation: 82 ALR 1510, 1511.

2. 80 Am Jur 2d Wills, '1607, Annotation 82 ALR 1510; 93 ALR 1384.

3. 80 Am Jur 2d, Wills '1611

4. Annotation: 60 ALR3d 1147, 1170, '4.

5. 80 Am Jur 2d Wills, '1610.

6. Blacks Law 5th Ed. p.1000 Matters in pais signifies matter of fact, probably because matters of fact are triable by the country; i.e. by jury.

7. 80 Am Jur 2d Wills '1626, Annotation: 82 ALR 1525 et seq.

8. Wilson v Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 183 Md 245, 37 A2d 321, 152 ALR 892. The Founding Fathers had a Contract with the Posterity and the Fourteenth Amendment does not satisfy the testators obligation but has a wholly different motive.

9. Annotation : 173 ALR 3d 143 '9.

10. Crawford v Briant (CA10 Okla) 53 2d 754, Annotation: 60 ALR3d 1147, 1172, '7.

(2 of 2)