US Judges - wages to be paid in gold/silver court case won

[tommyf350]

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/...rs/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]

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/...rs/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]

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]

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 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 though and only because its stock certificates are designed by Congress to depreciate over time. That is otherwise illegal.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Chex]

Beer v. United States and Solicitor General Kagan

[LearnTheLaw]

Beer v. United States and Solicitor General Kagan

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]

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 and that Scott Greagory BEACH 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]

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]

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?

[shikamaru]

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.