Tweet
"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!
"
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?
Comment