: Public Law v. Public Policy

[Jack Peach]

    Howard Freeman 
  www.worldnewstand.net 

  Public Law v. Public Policy 

  He said, "Name any decision of the Supreme Court after 1938 and I'll honor it, but all the decisions you read were prior to 1938, and I don't honor those decisions." I asked what happened in 1938. He said, "Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy. The charge that Mr. S. was being tried for is a Public Policy Statute, not Public Law, and those Supreme Court cases do not apply to Public Policy." I asked him what happened in 1938. He said that he had already told me too much--he wasn't going to tell me any more. 

  1938 and the Erie Railroad 

  Well, I began to investigate. I found that 1938 was the year of the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case of the Supreme Court. It was also the year the courts claim they blended Law with Equity. I read the Erie Railroad case. A man had sued the Erie Railroad for damages when he was struck by a board sticking out of a boxcar as he walked along beside the tracks. The district court had decided on the basis of Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law that this man was not under any contract with the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to sue the company. Under the Common Law, he was damaged and he would have had the right to sue. 

  This overturned a standing decision of over one-hundred years. Swift v. Tyson in 1840 was a similar case, and the decision of the supreme Court was that in any case of this type, the court would judge the case on the Common Law of the state where the incident occurred--in this case Pennsylvania. But in the Erie Railroad case, the supreme Court ruled that all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level. So here we find the blending of Law with Equity. 

  This was a puzzle to me. As I put these new pieces together, I determined that all our courts since 1938 were Merchant Law courts and not Common Law courts. There were still some pieces of the puzzle missing. 

  A Friend in the Court 

  Fortunately, I made a friend of a judge. Now you won't make friends with a judge if you go into court like a wolf in sheep country. You must approach him as though you are the sheep and he is the wolf. If you go into court as a wolf, making demands and telling the judge what the law is--how he had better uphold the law or else--you will make the judge your enemy. Remember the verse: I send you out as sheep in wolf country; be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove. We have to go into court and be wise and harmless, and not make demands. We must play a little dumb and ask a lot of questions. Well, I asked a lot of questions and boxed the judges into a corner where they had to give me a victory or admit what they didn't want to admit. I won the case, and on the way out I had to stop by the clerk's office to get some papers. One of the judges stopped me and said, "You're an interesting man, Mr. Freeman. If you're ever in town, stop by, and if I'm not sitting on a case we will visit." 

  America is Bankrupt 

  Later, when I went to visit the judge, I told him of my problem with the supreme Court cases dealing with Public Policy rather than Public Law. He said, "In 1938, all the higher judges, the top attorneys and U.S. attorneys, were called into a secret meeting and this is what we were told: 

  "America is a bankrupt nation--it is owned completely by its creditors. The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the state governments. 

  'Take silent judicial notice of this fact, but never reveal it openly. Your court is operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction--call it anything you want, but do not call it Admiralty." 

  Admiralty Courts 

  The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is that your defense would be quite different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from your defense under the Common Law. In Admiralty, there is no court jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract in dispute. If you know it is Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they have admitted on the record that you are in an Admiralty Court, you can demand that the international maritime contract, to which you are supposedly a part, and which you supposedly have breached, be placed into evidence. 

  No court has Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless there is a valid international maritime contract that has been breached. 

  So you say, just innocently like a lamb, "Well, I never knew that I got involved with an international maritime contract, so I deny that such a contract exists. If this court is taking Jurisdiction in Admiralty, then place the contract in evidence, so that I may challenge the validity of the contract." What they would have to do is place the national debt into evidence. They would have to admit that the international bankers own the whole nation, and that we are their slaves.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/spcan/attachments/20030724/4e5b30da/attachment.html