|View single post by Joe Kelley|
|Posted: Tue Dec 31st, 2013 10:23 pm||
I would have replied to your latest response here had I not chosen to begin offering information at the new National Liberty Alliance Forum.
I found out that (so far) there is no edit feature to that Forum. I published errors that I prefer to edit out, but the general message may still be readable.
As far as what you have written here I can respond and I can get practice at working to make the connection more visible between Common Law Grand Jury Due Process and a return to Public Money.
I agree with the concept of more, and more, and more people sharing the same terms whereby the same definitions for those terms connect all those people thinking along the same lines.
Please excuse my ending this reply at this point at this time. I have not done other pressing things while I had been responding on the new NLA Forum.
While reading the response by Doug I stopped reading (So much of that information is foreign and difficult for me to read) and I returned to an old source of information because I am looking for a specific court case concerning a contention over the accurate measure of Legal Money (Public or Private?); but, while looking for that court case I stumbled on another point that may be worth bookmarking here:
At time: 42:40
From Carl Miller and from the reference sited are words documenting the hierarchy of dominant law in favor of common law.
American Jurisprudence Volume 16 Constitutional Law Section 97
16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 114:
“As to the construction, with reference to Common Law, an important cannon of construction is that constitutions must be construed to reference to the Common Law.” “ The Common Law, so permitted destruction of the abatement of nuisances by summary proceedings and is was never supposed that a constitutional provision was intended to interfere with this established principle and although there is no common law of the United States in a since of a national customary law as distinguished from the common law of England, adopted in the several states. In interpreting the Federal Constitution, recourse may still be had to the aid of the Common Law of England. It has been said that without reference to the common law, the language of the Federal Constitution could not be understood.”
Returning to Carl Miller
I have been searching for the case in which Carl Miller describes a controversy over the accurate measure of a legal unit of money. I have not found that yet.
I did find at time 37:21 in Part II Know Your Constitution the following:
U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one possesses, the other does not.
Why does that spark my interest?
How does that quote in that famous Supreme Court Case jive with this:
George Mason Virginia Ratifying Convention June 04, 1788
Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former.
Carl Miller Know Your Constitution Part 3
Michigan Compiled Laws Programing 21.153
No Federal Reserve Bank Notes (Federal Reserve Notes are not bank notes)
Here is what I was looking for at time 19:07
Montgomery Ward versus Eugene Glascher 82-002087 Judge James P Sheehy
Judge James P. Sheehy made a legal determination that the substance of the money of the account of the United States Government was coffee beans. Defendant agreed to judgment and paid judgment in the amount of 1,148 coffee beans. Montgomery Ward v. Glaysher, 82-002087 (52nd District Court of Michigan, October 8, 1982)
That link is not the Court Case so finding the Court Case ought to be high on the list of things to do soon.
Dollars of what?
That question goes to the heart of the problem whereby the criminals take over what is moral government had the criminals not taken over government.
I can certainly see how someone like Carl Miller believes that he was following lawful orders in Cambodia during the so called Vietnam War. The misdirection has to do with who stole moral government, when they did it, how they did it, who was handed that power since the original crime, and what all of those criminals were willing to do to keep their power, and what all those criminals actually did do, and to which innocent victims, so as to keep their power to steal ALL the power and use ALL the power to steal more.
Here is the original USURPATION:
I will continue this at a later date, and I will move this onto other sites.
Before going for a break, I think it is very important to restate the problem:
Dollars of what?