The original contract was with The People who wrote what Money is and what Government is.
They didn't write what money was, only who had authority over it.
The parts of the First Judiciary Act that pertain to maritime/admiralty/ship/vessels that I showed you provide Remedy from maritime jurisdiction in all cases, especially those that have Remedy already written in them, this is why court cites 12usc411 every time in the cases you think support you.
Yeah, they cite 12 USC 411, which has no link whatsoever to the Judiciary Act you're talking about. If they meant to cite the Judiciary Act, they would have done so. But they certainly didn't because it's totally unconnected.
Maritime jurisdiction has nothing to do with these cases because they aren't maritime cases! The claim is laughably absurd. You aren't even pretending they're maritime cases, you're just blubbering out of your ass.
The original sovereign authority that established All US Law is what? The Creator. The Creator created We The People and endowed us with inalienable rights. We The People with our inalienable rights created Government and restricted its rights. It's not the "highest law of the land" for nothing and it is the highest authority of maritime law involving "seizures on land" and maritime commerce relating to the US too. Your supreme court case upholds this perfectly.
You're quoting from the Declaration of Independence again, which is not law. The people did nothing but formally announce their intention to rebel in that document; it has no legal effect. The people did grant the federal government powers under the constitution, which is the highest law of the land. Alas, maritime jurisdiction means maritime jurisdiction.
The Judiciary Act doesn't grant the federal government maritime jurisdiction, the constitution does: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States...to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction..." All this means is that federal courts have the power to hear all cases involving admiralty/maritime issues. The Judiciary Act codifies the constitutional grant of original authority to the federal courts but modifies it with the "saving to suitors" clause, which enables litigants to seek common law remedies in state courts despite the constitutional grant of maritime/admiralty jurisdiction to the federal government. In both cases, maritime/admiralty jurisdiction has nothing to do with other kinds of cases. It is limited strictly to the water and to ships, which makes it totally irrelevant to currency redemption.
See the Wikipedia page on admiralty law, which confirms everything I just said:
"Section 2 of
Article III of the United States Constitution gives
original jurisdiction in admiralty matters to the
federal courts. The federal courts have
exclusive jurisdiction over most admiralty and maritime claims pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1333. Under this statute, federal district courts are granted original jurisdiction over admiralty actions "saving to suitors," a right to file
suit for most of these actions in
state court.
Despite the savings to suitors clause, certain actions are only permitted to be filed in admiralty in federal court. Those include all
in rem maritime actions. This includes suits seeking
forfeiture of
ships to enforce maritime
mortgages and
liens, petitions to limit a shipowner's
liability to the value of a ship after a major accident, and actions seeking to partition
ownership of a ship. However, the vast majority of maritime actions, such as suits for damage to
cargo, injuries to seamen,
collisions between vessels,
wake damage, and
maritime pollution cases may be brought in either federal court or state court by virtue of the savings to suitors clause."
It would not do you any good you denounce the Constitution which is the highest law; and all its contained definitions gold and silver coin and bills of credit there ya go.......now go on with your blame america hating nonsense the only argument you have is hating the Constitution for bullshit reasons like slavery.....which was a world problem not an exclusively American problem.
END THE FED AND END THIS THREAD!!!
States may not issue bills of credits; states may only issue gold and silver money. I'm not the one denouncing the constitution, apparently you are by ignoring what it says
. I would expect Mr. Definitions to comprehend that "no state" does not mean "the federal government."
See, putting words in my mouth is one of the biggest problems you have. You think that because I recognize the original intent of the constitution it means that I "hate" the constitution. I certainly don't. I think the constitution establishes a brilliant system of government for the United States, and I think that people have evolved to use the constitution and the law to work toward freedom and equality. That does not mean that the framers, hundreds of years earlier, envisioned or intended for a utopia of racial, gender, and sexual harmony to spring from the words they wrote. History makes it exceedingly obvious that the words did not mean what they said, and I'm not oblivious to that painful and tragic reality.
