Public Law versus Public Policy

[goldphoenix]

James,


thank you for the definition! I absolutely love that website, by the way!


Kgod,


What if one simply refutes the strawman ("it ain't me")?


&


goldphoenix


&

I have a good friend that shared this case with me just one day before the subject was brought up on Sui Juris.& And the same day that it was posted here my sister asked me about it.& My only conclusion is that we are being guided to achieve a common goal.


Anyway, the big this that happened in 1938 to change the country from Public Law to Public Policy was a case called Erie Railroad vs Tompkins 304 U.S. 64.& I don't know enough to be able to explain it in good detail but you should follow the link below, it provides a simple explanation.


http://www.worldnewsstand.net/freedom/ucc1.htm

[goldphoenix]

Yes, that's the first man's material I ever read on "without prejudice" and such (Howard Freeman). And I also used a technique of his in a court, which I don't believe was appreciated by the "adminstrator."


I'm still trying to wrap my brain around how&the public law switched to public policy. What I'm getting out of it is that when the need for "benefits" increased due to the gold being taken out of circulation, then the number of presumed 14th amendment citizens was increased through their taking of the "benefits." I could be way off, though.


Here's an excerpt from an Aware newsletter on it:


the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins 68 decision of 1938 stated that there was no longer "general federal common law." The Erie Railroad case was based on the fact that it was assumed that all citizens in the United States have been included in contractual commerce of the private law merchant (through the 14th Amendment and HJR 192) outside the Constitution as allowed by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. The Erie Railroad decision came five years after HJR 192 (the removal of the fixed gold standard). This allowed enough time to pass so the when people realized that they had no right to a real jury trial, they would not panic. Erie Railroad was based on HJR 192 because the fixed standard (the law or the gold) of money was removed.


and a little more:


The Erie Railroad decision saying there was no "general federal common law" was based on the fact that the man who sued the railroad was an outlaw to the Constitution. That is, he had no standing in absolute constitutional law because he was a 14th Amendment citizen and therefore he could not call on any general federal commercial common law that still existed in the Republic for protection. 70 He had chosen, by the default of silence, the private law of the 14th Amendment trust for public purposes. He could not claim any rights based upon the Swift v. Tyson decision nor could he access Article III, Section 2 courts of "judicial Power." Instead, he could only be compelled to resort to Article I legislative courts that operate outside the U.S. Constitution.