That's it. That is all you want for proof of claim: that the AFV/RFV tender was insufficient consideration to close out the original agreement. That's all you are seeking.
The money orders act to BOND the account to the operate according to the Contract: indemnify the account holder-in-due-course with Insurance that is NOT bankrupt. That is the importance regarding the CR(tm) and the money order: one agrees to pay XX dollar per month against any outstanding obligation resulting form the operation of the New Contract upon proof of claim the consideration tender was insufficient; the proof of claim being the RETURN consideration now owed by the utility.
And should the utility FAIL to provide proof of claim, then ANY further action is considered a BREACH OF PEACE and ALL payments made on the New Contract now BOND the account and indemnify the holder-in-cure-course of that account for operating under the terms of the New Contract which then should put the kibosh on the smart meter installation because now your account is ACCOUNTED FOR and no longer operating under Bankruptcy as a belligerent war-rebel.
So, there really is no change to the CR(tm) language. Maybe a little, but not much. It is the understanding of the philosophy that is most important: what is it one seeks?
You could even put in there the language from 40 Stat 411 (12 USC 95a(2)) regarding "acquittance and discharge from further obligation" or that with each bill, there is to be proof of claim that the original consideration tender was insufficient and then just AFV/RFV each bill thereafter, HOWEVER, I do not really think it wise to utilize the cease and desist language in there for accounts that operate such as utility accounts, do you?
Would it be more prudent to somehow use the over-payment resulting from taking the CR(tm) to its logical conclusion as a surety bond to underwrite any loss or expense arising from the operation and administration of this account?
Remember: in the fiat world, 742.50 grains of silver (two dollars) is PURE EQUITY, thus unlimited CREDIT: the TWO COINS needed to cross the River Styx, else one remain in the shores of the River for 99 years (duration of a usufruct) and thus treated AS IF one were usufructuary (held in purgatory)
There is really no limit to what you can construct, except yourself and the more concise you make the agreement, the easier it will become when it comes time to enforce.
Hopefully this helps.
We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.
If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
The offer to put in the meter is also accepted for its value and returned for its value as consideration to settle that contract and now the proof of claim would be that the consideration tender was insufficient.