PDA

View Full Version : US Judges - wages to be paid in gold/silver court case won



tommyf350
10-17-12, 10:22 PM
http://www.kitco.com/ind/Bevan/20121015.html

"A very interesting court case has become public, but underreported, whereby US judges are looking to see their payment contracts upheld.

Basically, they have a contract of automatic pay increases which in turn keep them from feeling any effects of an economic downturn or inflationary episode.

Congress tried to stymie this contract but the judges took them to court and won.

Now what?s most interesting about this case is that these ?dollars? which they are paid in, or a measure of what a dollar is truly, was marked as 371 1/4 grains of silver or 1 15th as many grains of gold.

When the contract was struck they deemed gold and silver to be the only measure worthy of holding the contract to.

Basically US judges just won a court case which says 100% definitively that gold and silver ARE money, and more than that, they are what all currencies must be measured against.

Now this is nothing new to myself or anyone who?s read any of my work but to the majority who have been brainwashed by the media and school systems alike this may come as a shock.

Actually, it most likely won?t as this story will not be widely talked about or publicized.

Now if only the general public could enact such a contract for measuring minimum wage. That would be one hornets? nest of a problem!
"



http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-5012.pdf

now im a new-B here,i think im onto somthing, according to the case,judges are prevented from serving juris prudence if their pay is diminished,wich was/is FRNs and inflation is the problem they are trying to address with COLA but only nominally?
now leagle tender dispensed by the feds would seem like it would biased them in their decision of applying federal law to our constitutional rights,as stated in the thomkins v erie RR case.
so every order a federal judge hands down is merley somthing he shouldnt of and is indeed a colflict of intrest as stated in the link

"This court en banc now turns its attention to two pre-liminary issues before addressing the merits of the ap-peal. First, judicial review of laws affecting judicial compensation is not done lightly as these cases implicate a conflict of interest. Will, 449 U.S. at 211?17. After all, judges should disqualify themselves when their impartial-ity might reasonably be questioned or when they have a potential financial stake in the outcome of a decision. See 28 U.S.C. ? 455(a). In Will, the Supreme Court applied"

i beleive i learned of this link here im just referencing it as evidence thank you,http://www.ballew.com/bob/htm/fotc.htm#01

this is also a very intresting quote ,you think this applies to FRN's? lol.
a power over a mans subsistence amounts to a power over his will.? The Federalist No. 79, p. 472 (Alexander Hamil-ton)

well does this mean we are immune from federal prosicution? or have i missed somthing?

shikamaru
10-17-12, 10:55 PM
http://www.kitco.com/ind/Bevan/20121015.html

"A very interesting court case has become public, but underreported, whereby US judges are looking to see their payment contracts upheld.

Basically, they have a contract of automatic pay increases which in turn keep them from feeling any effects of an economic downturn or inflationary episode.

Congress tried to stymie this contract but the judges took them to court and won.

Now what?s most interesting about this case is that these ?dollars? which they are paid in, or a measure of what a dollar is truly, was marked as 371 1/4 grains of silver or 1 15th as many grains of gold.

When the contract was struck they deemed gold and silver to be the only measure worthy of holding the contract to.

Basically US judges just won a court case which says 100% definitively that gold and silver ARE money, and more than that, they are what all currencies must be measured against.

Now this is nothing new to myself or anyone who?s read any of my work but to the majority who have been brainwashed by the media and school systems alike this may come as a shock.

Actually, it most likely won?t as this story will not be widely talked about or publicized.

Now if only the general public could enact such a contract for measuring minimum wage. That would be one hornets? nest of a problem!
"



http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-5012.pdf

now im a new-B here,i think im onto somthing, according to the case,judges are prevented from serving juris prudence if their pay is diminished,wich was/is FRNs and inflation is the problem they are trying to address with COLA but only nominally?
now leagle tender dispensed by the feds would seem like it would biased them in their decision of applying federal law to our constitutional rights,as stated in the thomkins v erie RR case.
so every order a federal judge hands down is merley somthing he shouldnt of and is indeed a colflict of intrest as stated in the link

"This court en banc now turns its attention to two pre-liminary issues before addressing the merits of the ap-peal. First, judicial review of laws affecting judicial compensation is not done lightly as these cases implicate a conflict of interest. Will, 449 U.S. at 211?17. After all, judges should disqualify themselves when their impartial-ity might reasonably be questioned or when they have a potential financial stake in the outcome of a decision. See 28 U.S.C. ? 455(a). In Will, the Supreme Court applied"

i beleive i learned of this link here im just referencing it as evidence thank you,http://www.ballew.com/bob/htm/fotc.htm#01

this is also a very intresting quote ,you think this applies to FRN's? lol.
a power over a mans subsistence amounts to a power over his will.? The Federalist No. 79, p. 472 (Alexander Hamil-ton)

well does this mean we are immune from federal prosicution? or have i missed somthing?

Help me out here.

I read the pdf you posted. No where in those cases does it even mention silver or gold. In fact, it stated in the first case that compensation for Article III judges are not tied to any commodity.

tommyf350
10-17-12, 11:20 PM
i beleive they where trying to avoid it by not adding it to the scope of their judgments because it would reveil the conflict of intrest of a private bank paying judges to enforce federal law as our consitutional lawfull money is gold and silver, a commodity for now. it seems like they lied, i could be wrong you guys have been at this longer than i have.

David Merrill
10-18-12, 12:57 AM
i beleive they where trying to avoid it by not adding it to the scope of their judgments because it would reveil the conflict of intrest of a private bank paying judges to enforce federal law as our consitutional lawfull money is gold and silver, a commodity for now. it seems like they lied, i could be wrong you guys have been at this longer than i have.

I have not examined it carefully yet...

But I believe some very prophetic insights may be gleaned. In fact like Tommy says, PACER will not even find the Federal Circuit postings. That is the first thing I find fascinating - but that is just the start! Thank you TommyF!

I found the docket report and original complaint so as you look through post requests for anything else you see on the docket report. I like the way the complaint starts. It is quite the same flavor as Scott Gregory's (BEACH) complaint (http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/9716/frbsuedreport6811.pdf) last year against the Fed. Scott could not see fit to describe the injury when ordered to Show Cause for Which Relief Can be Granted.

A helpful aid to grasp this is that the Federal Reserve is not an agency of the United States, it is an instrumentality (http://img863.imageshack.us/img863/3750/frbvmetrocentreimprovem.pdf)though and only because its stock certificates are designed by Congress to depreciate over time (http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_Story_of_Money.zip). That is otherwise illegal.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Chex
10-18-12, 01:10 PM
Beer v. United States (http://www.nysun.com/editorials/is-legal-tender-next/88019/)and Solicitor General Kagan (http://www.nysun.com/national/kagans-first-case-could-involve-a-question-of-her/86953/)

David Merrill
10-18-12, 02:33 PM
Thank you Chex;


I am not spending much reading time on this so I like to grab the essence in a few sentences:


They have just won a ruling that prohibits Congress from suspending a system of automatic pay increases designed to protect their honors from inflation.



That is what I was after. This is to say that the value of the judges pay is tracking what the US note is supposed to be. This is the same injury expressed in the new Libel of Review (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?310-New-Rendition-of-Libel-of-Review&p=8158&viewfull=1#post8158) and that Scott Greagory BEACH (http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/9716/frbsuedreport6811.pdf) should have expressed when the judge demanded a cause of action for which the court could grant relief.

The judges feel their pay is diminished by the fractional lending of reserve and elastic currency.

martin earl
10-19-12, 07:12 PM
The
Pandoras box of elastic currency and its ramifications is now open. Between all the various groups (sovereigns, the internet, lawful money redemption, Ron Paul, gold bugs, Federal Judges) the veil of deceit is being ripped apart, the illusion of control dissipating.

Everything is changing and rapidly.

David Merrill
10-19-12, 08:36 PM
The
Pandoras box of elastic currency and its ramifications is now open. Between all the various groups (sovereigns, the internet, lawful money redemption, Ron Paul, gold bugs, Federal Judges) the veil of deceit is being ripped apart, the illusion of control dissipating.

Everything is changing and rapidly.

One suitor just suggested that somebody revitalize McFADDEN's accusations from March/April of 1933 - still in the Congressional Record. Something about HJR-192 has preserved equitable title to all the gold?

tommyf350
10-19-12, 08:40 PM
Thank you to everyone who responded.I feel im getting the idea behind the libel of review, as i read it over. i looked over the two title 18 quotes in the LoR,and it seems there are certainly remifications for participating in fraud for the purpose's of collecting fee's or property for a foreign bank specificly the IMF.

18 USC ? 661 - Within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/661

18 USC ? 1201 - Kidnapping
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1201

Thanks again guys feel free to correct me if/when i foul up,ill edit my posts accordingly.

David Merrill
10-19-12, 08:52 PM
You are quite welcome Tommy!


The Libel of Review is fluff and gets dismissed. What remains is the evidence repository. Pay special attention to the example Clerk Instruction in the LoR. Read that carefully with the paragraph before it too.



PPS: forgot to mention... along with that check I sent certified a copy of my Default Judgment published at county level.

Nickname

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: David Merrill <>
Sent: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:03:14 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: mortgage

you may recall, we're very behind in our mortgage payments.
So much so that mortgage co. was sending nasty letters, and even returning a check uncashed because it wasn't for the full amount due. I have been R4C'ing just about everything from them.

Well, today I discover they have cashed our latest check:!
(attached)

Seems we may not be in default after all.

shikamaru
10-20-12, 12:03 PM
One suitor just suggested that somebody revitalize McFADDEN's accusations from March/April of 1933 - still in the Congressional Record. Something about HJR-192 has preserved equitable title to all the gold?

Remember .... HJR-192 is "watch the birdie".

The real force of law was seizure of gold via eminent domain powers. Although, the government did extend people an invite to voluntarily turn in their gold to Federal Reserve banks in exchange for FRNs .....

... many accepted.

Chex
12-09-12, 01:56 AM
The most significant change is moving gold from its tier 3 status to tier 1 capital as 100% loan-backing reserves, the same as cash and bonds. For the first time in 42 years, gold is being brought back into our financial system as money.

Read more here: http://seekingalpha.com/article/1016161-basel-iii-and-gold

What did the judges really know?

LearnTheLaw
12-09-12, 04:11 AM
Beer v. United States (http://www.nysun.com/editorials/is-legal-tender-next/88019/)and Solicitor General Kagan (http://www.nysun.com/national/kagans-first-case-could-involve-a-question-of-her/86953/)

Thank you Chex..




Madison’s wheat gambit was rejected, the court noted, and Founders did not tie judges pay to “any commodity.” Quoth the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: “The framers instead acknowledged that ‘fluctuations in the value of money, and in the state of society, rendered a fixed rate of compensation [for judges] in the Constitution inadmissible.’” It was quoting 79 Federalist again. It noted that the constitutional convention voiced concerns “to protect judicial compensation against economic fluctuation.”

It turns out, though, that the historical record is clear what the Founders thought dollars were. They used the word “dollars” twice in the Constitution. By a dollar they meant 371 and ¼ grains of pure silver or a 15th as many grains of gold. That’s the way Congress defined a dollar in law under the Articles of Confederation and the way Congress defined it in law in the first Coinage Act of the constitutional era.

The idea that a dollar could be worth a different number of grains of silver or gold at the end of a contract than it meant at the beginning of a contract would have horrified George Washington and nearly all of the other Founders (Benjamin Franklin, a printer, had a vested interest in paper money). So would the idea that the dollar would be permitted to decline over a decade to but a sixth of the number of grains of gold at which it was valued at the start of a decade. That is what has just happened in America.

The court deciding Beer didn’t get into legal tender per se. But the legal tender question is the elephant in the courtroom, so to speak. If a dollar can’t be diminished for judges — that is, if the legal tender laws are not good enough for judges — why should they be good enough for the rest of us? If they are not good enough for the contract between the government and judges, why should they be good enough for contracts between private parties?

Or, to put it another way, the rest of us folk might as well be amici as the courts start to grapple with constitutional money. The diminishment of their salaries has driven the federal judges nearly to distraction, and understandably so, precisely because they are honest men and women. The chief justices — most recently Chief Justices Roberts and Rehnquist — have been warning about it for decades. The Great Scalia issued an impassioned warning about the problem here in New York just the other day.

We don’t know whether the Supreme Court will be asked to hear an appeal of Beer. If it is asked, it may decline. But if the nine are asked to take a final look at the case, the question for them to start thinking about is less the promises of Congress — although breaking such a promise is enough of a diminishment for us — and more about the meaning of money. The fact is that Americans are just as upset about the harm being done to them by fiat money as the judges are.

David Merrill
12-09-12, 08:04 AM
The most significant change is moving gold from its tier 3 status to tier 1 capital as 100% loan-backing reserves, the same as cash and bonds. For the first time in 42 years, gold is being brought back into our financial system as money.

Read more here: http://seekingalpha.com/article/1016161-basel-iii-and-gold

What did the judges really know?


I enjoy that when such a gem of a thread gets bumped. I had forgotten about this topic entirely:



http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/55/pl945643.jpg

Chex
12-28-12, 08:15 PM
NEW YORK (http://www.nysun.com/national/kagans-first-case-could-involve-a-question-of-her/86953/) — If Solicitor General Kagan is confirmed before the start of the Supreme Court’s coming term, one of her first big cases on the high bench could touch on one of the most sensitive questions the court has ever handled — the pay of federal judges themselves.

The case was launched quietly some years ago by a rainbow coalition of some of the most distinguished judges on the federal bench. They are seeking to overturn an act of Congress rescinding an automatic pay increase designed to protect federal judges from the ravages of inflation, and are likely this month to ask the Supreme Court to take the case.

What makes the case is so sensitive — potentially explosive, even — is that it could prove to be a stepping stone, whether intended or not, toward re-opening the question of legal tender. For the question of judges’ pay confronts the courts with the question of whether a one-dollar note of legal tender that trades today at less than 1,000th of an ounce of gold is compensation equal to a one-dollar note of currency that was worth, say, a decade ago four times as much. What makes federal judges so special is that it is unconstitutional to diminish the pay of any federal judge while he is in office.

Were the judges eventually forced to confront that question, says one legal scholar of the monetary system, Edwin Vieira Jr., “it would have profound economic and political effects, and it would cause a re-evaluation of the entire monetary system. Congress would be forced to undergo a complete re-evaluation of the monetary system.”

The federal judges asking the Supreme Court to review the rescission of their cost-of-living adjustments aren’t raising the legal tender question, at least not yet. They are not asking to be paid in constant — or inflation-adjusted — dollars, and they appear to believe that the Supreme Court doesn’t have to address that issue to satisfy their claim that Congress violated the anti-diminishment clause of the Constitution when it removed a previously promised cost-of-living raise. But they also have to be well aware of the enormity of the issue that lies just beyond the claim they are making.

The plaintiffs themselves comprise an array of senior judges and some of the most distinguished figures on the federal bench. They include two appointees of President Carter — a district judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, Peter Beer, and a judge on the district court in central California, Terry Hatter, Jr.; two appointees of President Reagan — Thomas F. Hogan, of the District Court for the District of Columbia, and Laurence H. Silberman, who rides the District of Columbia Circuit of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Also among the plaintiffs are three appointees of President Clinton — Richard Paez, who rides the Ninth Circuit for the United States Court of Appeals, and Jas. Robertson, of the District Court for the District of Columbia, and A. Wallace Tashima, who was elevated to ride the 9th Circuit by Mr. Clinton after having first served as a district judge on the nomination of Mr. Carter.

The pay of judges is one of the most sensitive issues in American history. The Declaration of Independence enumerates judges pay as one of the “injuries and usurpations” committed by George III against the Americans. The Declaration stated that the British tyrant “has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.”

It was that claim that led the Founders to establish, in Article III of the Constitution, that “[j]udges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour” — meaning for life — and that they “shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

The complaint in the latest case, which is known as Beer v. U.S., would not be the first time federal judges have gone to court with claims in respect of their pay. As recently as 2008 at New York State, judges launched a legal case to gain a raise. New York’s constitution, like the federal constitution, also prohibits the lowering of a judge’s pay. But the argument the New York judges have made, and they have made it in their own courts, is that the way the legislature in Albany has handled the issue violates the principle of separation of powers.

Beer v. U.S. involves federal judges, who are seeking a hearing by the Supreme Court with a different argument — that when Congress rescinded a legislated cost-of-living adjustment, as it did for a number of recent years, the judges’ pay was diminished. The judges lost in their early rounds on a complicated set of issues, partly of precedent established in an earlier case when judges fought for a cost of living increase.

In some recent legal fracases involving judges pay, there have been statements from several Supreme Court justices, including one by Justice Scalia, that seem to have emboldened the judges filing a claim in the latest case. They are expected to file in the next few days a petition for the Supreme Court to hear their claim that earlier precedents were wrongly decided and that rescinding a legislated cost-of-living adjustment is a diminishment. The Supreme Court has ruled that in cases where a judge has an interest in the outcome of a case but is by necessity the party who must hear it, it is the judge’s duty to rule, despite the conflict of interest. It may be that were Ms. Kagan to be elevated to the Supreme Court she would decide to recuse herself from Beer v. U.S. because of her either direct or tangential involvement in the case as solicitor general.

One difference between the current case and earlier ones is that the country is now in a historic monetary crisis, in which the value of United States fiat money has collapsed to such a degree that the Supreme Court would have to go through contortions to avoid considering it. In the past decade, the value of a dollar has plummeted to less than a 1,200th of an ounce of gold from, say, the 265th of an ounce of gold that it was worth at the start of the president of George W. Bush.

This means that the legal tender with which a judge is paid today is worth less than a quarter of what it was worth a decade ago.

The Supreme Court ruled after the Civil War that the federal government’s paper money had to be accepted as legal tender. The centerpiece of the court’s rulings was called Knox v. Lee [Quatloosian Federal Witness] and involved payment for a flock of sheep. But there is a legion of scholars and activists who believe — as did the Chief Justice of the United States at the time of Knox, Salmon Chase — that Knox v. Lee was wrongly decided. Such scholars argue that the majority in Knox v. Lee would never have sustained the monetary system we have today.

These critics point out that the Founders of America, who used the word “dollars” twice in the Constitution, all knew what the word meant — namely, 416 grains of standard silver or 371 ¼ grains of pure silver, the same as was in a then-ubiquitous coin known as a Spanish milled dollar, which was also known as a piece of eight. That standard was codified in one of the most famous laws passed in the early years of the republic, the Coinage Act of 1792. Critics of the legal tender law believe that 416 grains of standard silver — or the free market equivalent in gold — is the only form of constitutional money.

“If the judges bringing the case of Beer v. United States fail to convince the Supreme Court to restore their a cost of living adjustment, federal judges will then have no option left but to reformulate their case so as to challenge the legal tender concept as presently applied,” says Mr. Vieira. http://www.nysun.com/national/kagans-first-case-could-involve-a-question-of-her/86953/

Beer on tap (http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/22/beer-on-tap)

David Merrill
12-29-12, 12:09 AM
I linked to some of the USDC and appellate docket items on Page 1. Does anybody know what is happening in the USSC?


http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx

tommyf350
01-26-13, 11:42 PM
I was sifting through my states general laws randomly,it seems the DA and supreme court justices are forbiden from practicing law.

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleII/Chapter12/Section15
Section 15. District attorneys shall devote their full time during ordinary business hours to their duties, shall neither directly nor indirectly engage in the practice of law, and shall receive from the commonwealth a salary of $148,843 annually.

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIII/TitleI/Chapter211/Section22
Section 22. The chief justice shall receive a salary of $151,239 and each associate justice shall receive a salary of $145,984 and the chief justice and each associate justice shall annually receive from the commonwealth upon the certificate of the chief justice the amount of expenses incurred by each of them in the discharge of his duties. Such justices shall devote their entire time during ordinary business hours to their respective duties and shall not, directly or indirectly, engage in the practice of law.

i would post more evidence but i think this will do for now. im going to have to find a place that pays me to not work now im a bit jealous.