Pari n All,
You can't depend on others to grow without your own effort. You have to expand
your OWN SOLID foundation to " Know Thyself " and catching up, but "not at
others expense" with irrelevant, immaterial information.
THIS SITE Email is for solidified, summarized research to bebefit all.
Chat privately or publicly at mutual consent in other social platforms you
like, but you expose the levels you belong whereeber you go.
Study yourself diligently to catch up. You should know where you stand.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 10:24, Rick Paris<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I believe all Patriots involved here are offering a space of info to grow and
understand better who we are. Negatively judging one's contributions, or lack
of value in such a way is not contributing to the whole positively. I don’t
understand where the value of inhibiting anyone's process or contribution is in
this sort of way.
Is it really hard to just pass by something if you aren’t interested in it?
Can it be the fault of the author to why anyone’s comments would illicit anger
in another, when no malice is intended?
I have asked and gotten no answers from anyone with some of my basic questions,
likely because most people already know the answer, and have already visited
the issue too many times in prior posts to be interested. I think that new
people offer the greatest pathway to greater change, and helping them
understand who they are would be the best use of anyone's time. Most of these
deep conversations around what is lawful or not, sounds many times to me,
people fluffing their egos with their legal prowess, rather than breaking it
down a bit so that a layman can understand the lessons being shared.
At this point I gain something from everything I read here. I read all of the
posts.
On Oct 2, 2021, at 9:43 AM, nrcwinner@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
NELSON:
We all Know you are existing and alive.
No need to shout on this site ALL THE TIME with defragmented, multiple emails
of some unconcerned information ir take it to private individuals ( R. Paris?
).
Publuc v. Private: know the difference, lack of good judgment?
Presuming we all got nothing better to do ?
You will drive all good, resourceful people away....
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 9:20, Mike P<mike_p_5@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:They are
talking about "lawful money" of the country you are in...and you're NOT in peso
land....
From: administrating-your-public-servants-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<administrating-your-public-servants-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of NELSON
DICE <nelsondice@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 6:43 AM
To: Administrating-Your-Public-Servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [administrating-your-public-servants] McCullagh v Maryland. Glenn and
others quote many times, pay in pesos etc...., noticed this in the OPINION Upon
the issue of stock, bonds, bills, or notes of the United States, the states are
deprived of their power of taxation to the extent of the property invested by
individuals in such obligations, and the burden of state taxation upon other
private property is correspondingly increased. The 10 per cent. tax, imposed by
congress on notes of state banks and of private bankers, not only lessens the
value of such notes, but tends to drive them, and all state banks of issue, out
of existence. The priority given to debts due to the United States over the
private debts of an insolvent debtor diminishes the value of these debts, and
the amount which their holders may receive out of the debtor's estate. So,
under the power to coin money and to regulate its value, congress may (as it
did with regard to gold by the act of June 28, 1834, c. 95, and with regard to
silver by the act of February 28, 1878, c. 20) issue coins of the same
denominations as those already current by law, but of less intrinsic value than
those, by reason of containing a less weight of the precious metals, and
thereby enable debtors to discharge their debts by the payment of coins of the
less real value. A contract to pay a certain sum in money, without any
stipulation as to the kind of money in which it shall be paid, may always be
satisfied by payment of that sum in any currency which is lawful money at the
place and time at which payment is to be made. 1 Hale, P. C. 192-194; Bac. Abr.
'Tender, B. 2;' Poth. Cont. No. 416; Pardessus Droit Commercial, Nos. 204, 205;
Searight v. Calbraith, 4 Dall. 325. As observed by Mr. Justice STRONG, in
delivering the opinion of the court in the Legal-tender Cases, 'Every contract
for the payment of money, simply, is necessarily subject to the constitutional
power of the government over the currency, whatever that power may be, and the
obligation of the parties is, therefore, assumed with reference to that power.'
12 Wall. 549. Sent from Mail for Windows
With Life, Liberty, and Happiness,
Rick Sousarickparis23@xxxxxxxxx
