Every state did change their constitutions during this time frame. This was because every Governor went to D,C, the night before Roosevelt declared the bankruptcy and declared us the enemy of the government. I don't know if the governors are aware of this today. Most of them don't know shit about government.

In 1962 at the National Governor's Conference in Lexington,
Kentucky, US Inc. informs the governors, under the guise of "public necessity," that they must all form, or reform existing, private corporations under US Inc. (in their state's interest), so that the people will not discover what the state governments are doing with the people's money (dabbling in foreign notes, i.e. Federal Reserve Notes [FRNs], bonds, and other evidences of debt), which activity is forbidden from State governments by their own State constitutions,
which information would likely cause a people's revolt ending in the
State officials being at worst killed and at least replaced. The
proposed incorporation deadline was 1968.

House Joint Resolution 192 1933
(20 years after enactment of the Federal Reserve Act)

On June 5, 1933, Congress enacted HJR-192 to suspend the gold standard and to abrogate the gold clause. This resolution declared that "Whereas the holding or dealing in gold affect the public interest, and are therefore subject to proper regulation and restriction; and whereas the existing emergency has disclosed that provisions of obligations which purport to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency. . . are inconsistent with the declared policy of congress. . . in the payment of debts.

This resolution declared that any obligation requiring "payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money policy; and . . . Every obligation heretofore or hereafter incurred, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts."

A farm control bill around the same time period had attached to it a clause making Federal Reserve notes legal tender. In 1937, the Supreme Court struck down the Farm Control Act, thus carrying with it the legal tender status of Federal Reserve notes. Prior to 1933, Federal Reserve notes were used for inter-bank transfers. Around 1945, Congress passed a bill which called for the withdrawl of Federal Reserve notes from public circulation; but, they are still with us. . . *NOTE that the words do not talk about "payment" of debt, but clearly states that "Every Obligation . . . Shall be discharged."

In the case of Stanek v. White, 172 Minn. 390, 215 H.W. 784, the court explained the legal distinction between the words "payment" and "discharge": "There is a distinction between a `debt discharged' and a `debt paid.' When discharged the debt still exists though divested of its character as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge. Something of the original vitality of the debt continues to exist, which may be transferred, even though the transferee takes it subject to its disability incident to the discharge. The fact that it carries something which may be a consideration for a new promise to pay, so as to make an otherwise worthless promise a legal obligation, makes it the subject of transfer by assignment."

Thus, it is clear that, as a result of HJR 192 and from that day forward (June 5, 1933), no one has been able to pay a debt. The only thing they can do is tender in transfer of debts, and the debt is perpetual. The suspension of the gold standard, and prohibition against paying debts, removed the substance for our Common Law to operate on, and created a void, as far as the law is concerned. This substance was replaced with a "Public National Credit" system where debt is money (The Federal Reserve calls it "monetized debt") over which the only jurisdiction at is Admiralty and Maritime.

HJR-192 was implemented immediately. The day after President Roosevelt signed the resolution the treasury offered the public new government securities, minus the traditional "payable in gold" clause. Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, proscribes the States making any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt -- but, this Article does not contain an absolute prohibition against the States making something else a tender in transfer of debt.

HJR-192 prohibits payment of debt and substitutes, in its place, a discharge of an obligation -- thereby not only subverting, but totally bypassing the "absolute prohibition" so carefully engineered into the Constitution. There is, now, nothing for this Article to operate on, just as there is nothing for Common Law to operate on. Perpetual debt, bills, notes, cheques and credits fall within a totally different jurisdiction than contemplated by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 -- and that jurisdiction belongs exclusively to the Law of Admiralty and Maritime. Now, it is easy to see how "bills" as plenty as oak leaves, "polluted the laws after the War For Independence, as described by Peletiah Webster". This is how we lost access to substantive Common Law -- the very law the Minute Men fought to regain.

HJR-192 places every person who deals in the public national credit in the legal position of a merchant, and the only jurisdiction over any controversy involving this subject matter is Admiralty and Maritime. Obviously, if we cannot pay our debts at law, we are also benefiting from limited liability under the Limited Liability Act when we use this credit-- and, that is marine insurance!

The definitions of "liability" and "insure" will help convince us of this fact -- in analyzing these definitions, keep in mind the distinction between "payment" and "discharge". Liability: The word is a broad term. Ithas been defined to mean: all character of debts and obligations. . . any kind of debt or liability, either absolute or contingent, express or implied . . . condition which creates a duty to perform an act immediately or in the future . . . duty to pay money or to perform some other service . . . the state of being bound or obligated in law or justice to do, pay, or make good something. "Insure: "To engage to indemnify a person against pecuniary loss from specified perils or possible liability".

QUESTION #1: Who do you suppose took possession of the treasury of the State of Pa. on June 5, 1933, -- the moment HJR-192 made it impossible for the State of Pennsylvania to pay its debts?

QUESTION #2: Land titles being allodial in Pennsylvania, what was the State Assembly's authority and jurisdiction to pledge these allodiums to the Federal Reserve as security for loan contracts from the Federal Government?

QUESTION #3: If the individual citizens of Pennsylvania were indeed "sovereign" under the Common Law -- What was the authority and jurisdiction of the State Assembly to pledge their labor to the Federal Reserve pool?

Clearly, the alleged authority and jurisdiction is the so-called public policy declared by Congress. We will return to this subject later on.

If all the assets of the United States have been hypothecated to the Federal Reserve "pool" as security for the maritime loan and insurance underwriting policy, then that raises a couple of questions: QUESTION #1: If the United States "dies" (or is merged) under a One World government, who gets the pool? QUESTION #2: If the Federal Reserve "dies" by way of getting its charter rescinded, who gets the pool?

The answers can be found in the Federal Reserve Act itself: "Should a Federal Reserve bank be dissolved or go into liquidation, any surplus remaining, after the payment of all debts, dividend requirements as hereinbefore provided, and the par value of the stock, shall be paid to and become the property of the United States and shall be similarly applied".

31 USC 315B provided that: "No gold shall after January 30, 1934, be coined, and no gold coin shall after January 30, 1934, be paid out or delivered by the United States; provided however, that coinage may continue to be executed by the mints of the United States for foreign countries". This exception was necessary because foreign countries, being recognized or sovereign, could not be held to the internal public policy of the United States. HJR-192 was binding only upon those individuals who were beneficiaries of public policy; that being the privilege of limited liability for payment of debt arising out of participation in the Federal Reserve Public Credit System.

HJR-192 automatically extended the privilege to renege on debts to every person using the Federal Reserve banking system; however, never forget that when you operate on a privilege, you have to respect the ruler of the giver of that privilege. Furthermore, in the case of Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, the court said: "The court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits."

Thus, if you avail yourself of any benefits of the public credit system you waive the right to challenge the validity of any statute pertaining to, and conferring "benefits" of this system on the basis of constitutionality

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Every state is doing what the feds are doing and that's why they are going bankrupt EX: below

AN ACT relating to supersedeas bonds and declaring an emergency.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky:

SECTION 1.   A NEW SECTION OF KRS CHAPTER 411 IS CREATED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

(1)        If the appellee in a civil action obtains a judgment for punitive or exemplary damages and the appellant seeks a stay of enforcement of the judgment in order to obtain review by an appellate court, the supersedeas bond for the punitive damages portion of the judgment on appeal shall not exceed one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000).

(2)        If the appellee proves by a preponderance of the evidence that a party bringing an appeal, for whom the supersedeas bond requirement has been limited, is purposefully dissipating or diverting assets outside of the ordinary course of its business for the purpose of avoiding ultimate payment of the punitive damages judgment, the limitation granted under subsection (1) of this section shall be rescinded and the bond requirement shall be reinstated for the full amount of the judgment.

Section 2.   KRS 426.965 is amended to read as follows:

(1)        If the judgment debtor shows the court that an appeal from the foreign judgment is pending or will be taken, or that a stay of execution has been granted, the court shall stay enforcement of the foreign judgment until the appeal is concluded, the time for appeal expires, or the stay of execution expires or is vacated, upon proof that the judgment debtor has furnished the security for the satisfaction of the judgment required by the state in which it was rendered.

(2)        If the judgment debtor shows the court any ground upon which enforcement of a judgment of any court of this state would be stayed, including the ground that an appeal from the foreign judgment is pending or will be taken, or that the time for taking such an appeal has not yet expired, the court shall stay enforcement of the foreign judgment for an appropriate period until all available appeals are concluded or the time for taking all appeals has expired, upon requiring the same security for satisfaction of the judgment which is required in this state, subject to Section 1 of this Act.

Section 3.   The provisions of Sections 1 and 2 of this Act are hereby expressly declared to be retroactive and may be applied to all civil actions, including those on appeal, presently docketed in the courts of this Commonwealth.

Section 4.   Whereas the business environment of the state is under an unreasonable burden and the protection of the economy of this state is a matter directly related to the well-being of the citizens of the Commonwealth, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Act takes effect upon its passage and approval by the Governor or upon its otherwise becoming a law.

Courts Shift from Common Law to Equity and Admiralty Courts 

Under the Constitution, based on Common Law, the Republic of the Continental United States provides for legal cases: at Law, in Equity, and in Admiralty.  

(1) Law is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. It is the will of the majority, the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces, to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. Since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Law allows you to do anything you want to, as long as you don't infringe upon the life, liberty or property of anyone else. Law does not compel performance.  

Today's so-called laws (ordinances, statutes, acts, regulations, orders, precepts, etc.) are often erroneously perceived as law, but just because something is called a "law" does not necessarily make it a law. [There is a difference between "legal" and "lawful." Anything the government does is legal, but it may not be lawful.]  

(2) Equity is the jurisdiction of compelled performance (for any contract you are a party to) and is based on what is fair in a particular situation. The term "equity" denotes the spirit and habit of fairness, justness, and right dealing which would regulate the intercourse of men with men. You have no rights other than what is specified in your contract. Equity has no criminal aspects to it.  

(3) Admiralty is compelled performance plus a criminal penalty, a civil contract with a criminal penalty.  

By 1938 the gradual merger procedurally between law and equity actions (i.e., the same court has jurisdiction over legal, equitable, and admiralty matters) was recognized. The nation was bankrupt and was owned by its creditors (the international bankers) who now owned everything—the Congress, the Executive, the courts, all the States and their legislatures and executives, all the land, and all the people. Everything was mortgaged in the national debt. We had gone from being sovereigns over government to subjects under a foreign government, through the use of negotiable instruments to discharge our debts with limited liability, instead of paying our debts at common law with gold or silver coin.   

The change in our system of law from public law to private commercial law was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Erie Railroad vs. Thompkins case of 1938, after which case, in the same year, the procedures of Law were officially blended with the procedures of Equity. Prior to 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court decisions were based upon public law—or that system of law that was controlled by Constitutional limitation. Since 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court decisions are based upon what is termed public policy.  

Public policy concerns commercial transactions made under the Negotiable Instrument's Law, which is a branch of the international Law Merchant. This has been codified into what is now known as the Uniform Commercial Code, which system of law was made uniform throughout the fifty States through the cunning of the Congress of the UNITED STATES.  

In offering grants of negotiable paper (Federal Reserve Notes) which the Congress gave to the fifty States of the Union for education, highways, health, and other purposes, Congress bound all the States of the Union into a commercial agreement with the Federal United States (as distinguished from the Continental United States). The fifty States accepted the "benefits" offered by the Federal United States as the consideration of a commercial agreement between the Federal United States and each of the corporate States. The corporate States were then obligated to obey the Congress of the Federal United States and also to assume their portion of the equitable debts of the Federal United States to the international banking houses, for the credit loaned. The credit which each State received, in the form of federal grants, was predicated upon equitable paper.  

This system of negotiable paper binds all corporate entities of government together in a vast system of commercial agreements and is what has altered our court system from one under the Common Law to a Legislative Article I Court, or Tribunal, system of commercial law. Those persons brought before this court are held to the letter of every statute of government on the federal, state, county, or municipal levels unless they have exercised the REMEDY provided for them within that system of Commercial Law whereby, when forced to use a so-called "benefit" offered, or available, to them, from government, they may reserve their former right, under the Common Law guarantee of same, not to be bound by any contract, or commercial agreement, that they did not enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. Howard Freeman http://www.deoxy.org/lib/2us.htm

In 1976, Congress took away any semblance of law or justice left within our court system.  All law today is now construed, constructed and made up by the judge as it happens before your very eyes.  Common law has almost disappeared from the courts. They took away any control or authority we might have had over the court system.  This has been very well hidden from all of us. 

Many of us going into court often wonder why and how the courts can simply override the laws we put into our paperwork.  It’s very simple now that we know how they do it.  They operate on the words ‘construe and construct.’   

A simple word such as ‘in’ changed to ‘at’ as in ‘at law’ or ‘in law’ has a totally separate meaning.  For example:  If you’re in the river, you are wet, you can swim, etc., but if you’re at the river, you might enjoy a refreshing picnic, play baseball or run races. See the difference a simple word can make?  And, the attorneys often change this word when they answer your motions – in addition to many others. 

It will pay you in dividends to read the answers of attorneys to your paperwork.  Compare what they say the case law says to the actual case law itself.  You’ll discover that they have actually changed the words therein. This is illegal, you might say.  No, not, according to the US Code.  

You see, they can now construe and construct any law or statute to mean whatever they decide it means, for their benefit.  You don’t know any of this. You think they are railroading you in a kangaroo court.  No, they are ‘legal’ in what they do.  They usually follow the law to the letter; Their law, private law, the law of contract, that you know nothing about. This law is called contract law.

Taking Back Your Power 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9

WHAT CAN YOU DO? Stop playing THEIR game. Take back your power. Stop paying taxes that are not legal or lawful. Stop paying bills you don't really owe. Stop using THEIR money. There ARE ways if you open your mind and look for the gaps in their fences that keep the sheeple in their pasture. Are you chattel or a real person? You are the one who makes that choice.

You are the Prize that was captured in 1933.   

 prize, International Law

Related Category: International Law *prize,* in maritime law, the private property of an enemy that a belligerent captures at sea. For the capture of the vessel or cargo to be lawful it must be made outside neutral waters and by authority of the belligerent. A prize court,(all our courts are Prize courts, "international Tribunals" in the territory of the belligerent(your defacto governmnent) or in that of an allied power, must adjudicate that the property belonged to an enemy national. After the prize is captured, it is ordinarily placed in charge of a prize master (attorney) and sent into port (jail) for judicial proceedings; however, if the enemy character of the ship is readily apparent, it may be destroyed at sea (after passengers, crew, and ship's papers have been removed), with the captor's government being liable for the losses of neutrals. If the prize is sold before being adjudicated, the proceeds

must be delivered to the court for distribution. In the case of condemnation, the entire proceeds go to the belligerent government. In the United States, since 1899, the crew of the vessel effecting capture

has had no right to share in the profits of the sale. A prize court renders a decision on the basis of the ship's papers, the testimony of those on board, and other relevant factors. If the ship is not condemned, it is released and damages are awarded where no justifiable reason for its capture has been shown. Prize law initially developed

from the desire of governments to share in the profits made by ships engaged in privateering /encyclopedia/P/privatee.html>.   The governments also wished to minimize diplomatic claims for damages by establishing regular procedures for disposing of captures. Although they nominally apply international law, prize courts (in the United States, the federal courts) in awarding judgment have been influenced, or even bound, by the national law. To avoid this, prize cases are sometimes referred to international tribunals. Efforts to establish an international prize court with appellate jurisdiction, however, have not succeeded.

See J. W. Garner, /Prize Law during the World War/ (1927); C. J.Colombos, /Treatise on the Law of Prize/ (3d ed. 1949).

Don't you just love how these guys use law?