Grand Theft, Planet: Foreclosure: The constitutional reality is that you do not have to leave your home without a fight. Here is the legal precedent: "Only God can create something of value out of nothing." (Compiled by Tom Dennen)
“Plaintiff’s act of creating credit is not authorized by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, is unconstitutional and void, and is not a lawful consideration in the eyes of the Law to support anything or upon which any lawful right can be built.”
”Only God can create something of value out of nothing.”
Justice Martin V. Mahoney
| IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: |
| 1.That the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota according to the Plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office. |
“JEROME DALY had his own information to reveal about this case, which establishes that between his own revealed information and the fact that Justice Martin V. Mahoney was murdered 6 months after he entered the Credit River Decision on the books of the Court, why the case was never legally overturned, nor can it be.”
OFFICIAL COURT RECORD
First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly
February 4, 2005 | Banking, Federal Reserve, Judicial
|
RE: First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly |
|
IN THE JUSTICE COURT |
|
STATE OF MINNESOTA |
|
COUNTY OF SCOTT |
|
TOWNSHIP OF CREDIT RIVER |
|
JUSTICE MARTIN V. MAHONEY |
| First National Bank of Montgomery, |
| Plaintiff |
| vs |
| Jerome Daly, |
| Defendant |
JUDGMENT AND DECREE
The above entitled action came on before the Court and a Jury of 12 on December 7, 1968 at 10:00 am. Plaintiff appeared by its President Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by its Counsel, R. Mellby. Defendant appeared on his own behalf.
A Jury of Talesmen were called, impaneled and sworn to try the issues in the Case. Lawrence V. Morgan was the only witness called for Plaintiff and Defendant testified as the only witness in his own behalf.
Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession of Lot 19 Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minn. Plaintiff claimed title to the Real Property in question by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8, 1964 which Plaintiff claimed was in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were started.
Defendant appeared and answered that the Plaintiff created the money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry as the consideration for the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964 and alleged failure of the consideration for the Mortgage Deed and alleged that the Sheriff’s sale passed no title to plaintiff.
The issues tried to the Jury were whether there was a lawful consideration and whether Defendant had waived his rights to complain about the consideration having paid on the Note for almost 3 years.
Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this. Plaintiff further claimed that Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived any right to complain about the Consideration and that the Defendant was estopped from doing so.
At 12:15 on December 7, 1968 the Jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendant.
Now therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of United States and the Constitution and the laws of the State of Minnesota not inconsistent therewith ;
| IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: |
| 1.That the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota according to the Plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office. |
| 2.That because of failure of a lawful consideration the Note and Mortgage dated May 8, 1964 are null and void. |
| 3.That the Sheriff’s sale of the above described premises held on June 26, 1967 is null and void, of no effect. |
| 4.That the Plaintiff has no right title or interest in said premises or lien thereon as is above described. |
| 5.That any provision in the Minnesota Constitution and any Minnesota Statute binding the jurisdiction of this Court is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and to the Bill of Rights of the Minnesota Constitution and is null and void and that this Court has jurisdiction to render complete Justice in this Cause. |
| The following memorandum and any supplementary memorandum made and filed by this Court in support of this Judgment is hereby made a part hereof by reference. |
BY THE COURT
Dated December 9, 1968
| Justice MARTIN V. MAHONEY |
| Credit River Township |
| Scott County, Minnesota |
MEMORANDUM
The issues in this case were simple. There was no material dispute of the facts for the Jury to resolve.
Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of their interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire $14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. SeeAnsheuser-Busch Brewing Company v. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318, 46 N.W. 558. The Jury found that there was no consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing.
Even if Defendant could be charged with waiver or estoppel as a matter of Law this is no defense to the Plaintiff. The Law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them. See sections 50, 51 and 52 of Am Jur 2nd “Actions” on page 584 – “no action will lie to recover on a claim based upon, or in any manner depending upon, a fraudulent, illegal, or immoral transaction or contract to which Plaintiff was a party.”
Plaintiff’s act of creating credit is not authorized by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, is unconstitutional and void, and is not a lawful consideration in the eyes of the Law to support any thing or upon which any lawful right can be built.
Nothing in the Constitution of the United States limits the jurisdiction of this Court, which is one of original Jurisdiction with right of trial by Jury guaranteed. This is a Common Law action. Minnesota cannot limit or impair the power of this Court to render Complete Justice between the parties. Any provisions in the Constitution and laws of Minnesota which attempt to do so is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and void. No question as to the Jurisdiction of this Court was raised by either party at the trial. Both parties were given complete liberty to submit any and all facts to the Jury, at least in so far as they saw fit.
No complaint was made by Plaintiff that Plaintiff did not receive a fair trial. From the admissions made by Mr. Morgan the path of duty was direct and clear for the Jury. Their Verdict could not reasonably been otherwise. Justice was rendered completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, freely and without purchase, conformable to the laws in this Court of December 7, 1968.
BY THE COURT
December 9, 1968
| Justice Martin V. Mahoney |
| Credit River Township |
| Scott County, Minnesota. |
Note: It has never been doubted that a Note given on a Consideration which is prohibited by law is void. It has been determined, independent of Acts of Congress, that sailing under the license of an enemy is illegal. The emission of Bills of Credit upon the books of these private Corporations for the purpose of private gain is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States and is unlawful. See Craig v. Mo. 4 Peters Reports 912. This Court can tread only that path which is marked out by duty. M.V.M.
JEROME DALY had his own information to reveal about this case, which establishes that between his own revealed information and the fact that Justice Martin V. Mahoney was murdered 6 months after he entered the Credit River Decision on the books of the Court, why the case was never legally overturned, nor can it be.
Documents From The Courts Files 1st National Bank Of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly, Scott County MN.
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.
"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
Before It’s News® is a community of individuals who report on what’s going on around them, from all around the world. Anyone can join. Anyone can contribute. Anyone can become informed about their world. "United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
LION'S MANE PRODUCT
Try Our Lion’s Mane WHOLE MIND Nootropic Blend 60 Capsules
Mushrooms are having a moment. One fabulous fungus in particular, lion’s mane, may help improve memory, depression and anxiety symptoms. They are also an excellent source of nutrients that show promise as a therapy for dementia, and other neurodegenerative diseases. If you’re living with anxiety or depression, you may be curious about all the therapy options out there — including the natural ones.Our Lion’s Mane WHOLE MIND Nootropic Blend has been formulated to utilize the potency of Lion’s mane but also include the benefits of four other Highly Beneficial Mushrooms. Synergistically, they work together to Build your health through improving cognitive function and immunity regardless of your age. Our Nootropic not only improves your Cognitive Function and Activates your Immune System, but it benefits growth of Essential Gut Flora, further enhancing your Vitality.
Our Formula includes: Lion’s Mane Mushrooms which Increase Brain Power through nerve growth, lessen anxiety, reduce depression, and improve concentration. Its an excellent adaptogen, promotes sleep and improves immunity. Shiitake Mushrooms which Fight cancer cells and infectious disease, boost the immune system, promotes brain function, and serves as a source of B vitamins. Maitake Mushrooms which regulate blood sugar levels of diabetics, reduce hypertension and boosts the immune system. Reishi Mushrooms which Fight inflammation, liver disease, fatigue, tumor growth and cancer. They Improve skin disorders and soothes digestive problems, stomach ulcers and leaky gut syndrome. Chaga Mushrooms which have anti-aging effects, boost immune function, improve stamina and athletic performance, even act as a natural aphrodisiac, fighting diabetes and improving liver function. Try Our Lion’s Mane WHOLE MIND Nootropic Blend 60 Capsules Today. Be 100% Satisfied or Receive a Full Money Back Guarantee. Order Yours Today by Following This Link.
| Visits: | 1,813,699,487 |
| Stories: | 8,657,501 |
Whistler Blowers, Insiders
There’s a lot to be said about this.
But just try and have a paid-for Judge rule in favor of a homeowner and again a bank. LOL!
Our best bet is to take these type of cases to a jury trial and have the jury decide in favor of the homeowners — all across the country.
That’s one of the last true rights we have as Americans.
Chartsky
Chartsky.com
Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
—————————————————-
“Congress shall make no law that applies
to the citizens of the United States that does not
apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives;
and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the
Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply
equally to the citizens of the United States .”
PASS IT ON
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=14hsSGAdF12Uh0Bb8PoSu8iWq9qJqPs13FSsoKqm1Hbk
This links is my alternate argument, that the Federal reserve bank will not redeem their own notes in lawful money, even though they are required to do so. USC Title 12, Chapter 3, Subchapter XII, Section 411.
By failing to honor the note the loan is enumerated in, they fail to support the validity of the loan they made enumerated in those notes. The amount of the loan is then equal to the amount of the notes, zero.
This case is useless. 1) A judge did not make this ruling — he was a justice of the peace — and it was overturned the next day. 2) This argument and the case have been rejected by numerous courts over the years. 3) If you morons would think about this argument for five seconds, you’d realize only well-off people would ever get a home or business loan because there would never be enough reserves to lend to the rest of us. So…careful what you wish for.
“…you’d realize only well-off people would ever get a home or business loan because there would never be enough reserves to lend to the rest of us.”
Is not that very thing already happening?
The banks, by not having anything invested in the property have no claim on the property. They create the funds out of thin air at the time of the loan. They did not posses anything of lawful value nor did they own anything of lawful value prior to the agreement.
The argument is that the bank has nothing invested in the property. The money they used did not exist apriori to the loan, so they have no loss to recover.
The owner of the home and the previous seller that lived there are the only ones in the deal that took or had lawful possession of the property at any time. The bank never had lawful possession. The bank only held the deed.
The bank is the only party in the sale of the property that was unnecessary for the transaction. The loan note could have been given directly to the seller by the buyer, and the deed held by the seller until full payment was made.
Last, the power of money creation is not enumerated in the Constitution, and is not a power derived from any natural ability. Lawful money is Silver or Gold treasury coin, not Federal reserve promissory notes. Even id the legislation gives the Federal Reserve the power to create the legal tender, that power is not transferable to the member bank that loaned the funds. Ultra vires estopps the bank from making a claim, because they could not receive power from the Central Bank to create. The lender can use only the notes the central bank advanced them.
Title 12,3,12,411 defines this limit and the notes loaned by the member bank must be acquired by the bank taking out an advance from the Federal Reserve, not by creating the notes themselves.
> Is not that very thing already happening?
Try not to be so disingenuous. We’re in perhaps the worst credit crunch in 80 years, as you should know. Lending has contracted horrifically owing to circumstances; the practice during the “good” times was loans for everyone — even people without proof of income. So don’t be an idiot with your false skepticism.
@Deefburger
Holy crap, where to start? If the bank is creating funds out of thin air, is the previous owner (the seller) receiving thin air … or money? As you well know, the seller is receiving what can be converted 100% into cash. Where did the bank get the cash, thin air…or maybe from the Federal Reserve???
You all are arguing as if the banks 1) would even give out loans they couldn’t constitutionally call on, which is delusion of you to think, and 2) that the bank can’t lose money because it didn’t really create any, which is either wholly ignorant or plain dishonest.
This insane argument is not based in either law or common sense. It’s just denial or reality.
@terry the censor
You should begin by actually reading the law. Learn the difference between legal tender(your cash) and lawful money (U.S. Silver Dollars).
Then take a course or two in economics so you can tell what it is the bank is actually doing.
Then forget that the seller is not redeeming his cash for lawful payment. He is not involved in the action against the buyer by the bank. Only the bank itself is making a claim against the defendant, not the buyer. What the buyer thinks of his “payment” from the bank is of no concern to the case.
Get an education and then come back and call these people morons if you like. For now, you are mouthing off and from a perspective of ignorance of the law and it’s meaning.
@Deefburger
Your distinction is completely irrelevant. What you’re trying to argue — somehow — is that because you personally don’t trust or honour fiat money that no one else is legally obligated to honour it or any agreements involving it. Wow. Your legal reasoning is mere sophistry.
No, the law is not in support of fiat currency. Study up bud.
@Deefburger
Then where are all the arrests of these dastardly fiaters, bud?
Good question. I’d like to know too. Debasement by the treasury and it’s officers is punishable by death. (Coinage act 1792, still on the books).
Lawful money, the U.S. Dollar currency is the only money recognized by the Constitution, the highest law after nature in the U.S. justice system.
Tell me Terry, what was the bank’s risk that is worth the property in the transaction? What did they do or provide, at their expense, real and tangible, that is worth their claim on the house? And how is that greater than the current lawful possession of the defendant? The defendant pays the taxes, keeps up the maintenance, lives there, and has a real, tangible interest in the property. The bank only holds a note. The bank only provided notes(their own debt) as payment in lieu of the buyer’s direct debt to the seller. So what do they have invested?
Try this some time: Play monopoly with 5 people. One is the banker and has a laser printer to print money. The others have to get it the hard way. See what happens when the banker can print any time he wants for any reason. What will happen is everybody will owe the bank and own nothing.
> “Debasement by the treasury and its officers is punishable by death. Coinage Act 1792.”
In 218 years of the act, this punishment has not been executed for a case of a bank merely recognising legal tender cash, credit, cheques, etc., correct? You must therefore seriously consider the possibility your interpretation of the law is absolutely wrong.
> “what was the bank’s risk that is worth the property in the transaction? Etc.”
All that is irrelevant to the legal issue. You are changing the subject because your legal argument is totally spurious. If you are concerned that people and markets will lose confidence in fiat money, that is a legitimate discussion that is covered in business news sections all the time. But don’t trick out your concern with laughable and perhaps paranoid conspiracy theory or you will not get to have that discussion with a reasonable person.
How is it irrelevant? How do you frame the issue?
How does the bank have a power of creation of money value that I do not? and you do not? What are the effects on the economy? Why is Gresham’s Law true?
How much debt do you have? What do you actually own without payments?
Should I be able to make a ledger entry, call it money, then call it a loan, and then what? Eventually I will be calling it a house, and I did nothing but print a note. A super-power of some kind even though a six year old could do the same.
It is a positive right imposed on you as a power over and above your natural real-world self. Suddenly, with a signature on what to the buyer is a real house, and to the bank is only a note, a house is won, a family loses the only thing they have known as home, to a bank that knows nothing about that particular real tangible value!
What bank do you work for? Never mind I know already. The same one ALL of us do, the one with the monopoly on money value, The Federal Reserve Bank.
(From Wikipedia: Gresham’s law is commonly stated: “Bad money drives out good”, but is more accurately stated: “Bad money drives out good if their exchange rate is set by law.”.)
Gresham’s Law is true not just for the tangible good money of silver and gold. It is also true of every other tangible thing around you right now, if you are an “average” citizen and a part of the American, and now world economy. The current “exchange rate” for lawful money can be found on the U.S. Mint’s website:http://catalog.usmint.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10001&storeId=10001&productId=10365&langId=-1
The evidence is before you when you see a “re”-possession of a car, or the foreclosure of a home. Gresham’s law is true because the game is rigged. The bank is where the “good money” disappears into when the bank is the only entity with the “power” to create value out of nothing. This power logically and actually results in the ownership of all things by the bank itself.
Play that monopoly game. It can only end one way, in the bank’s favour. The tangible limits of the quantity of gold and silver are part of what gives them lasting value, just like a house or a car. Notes do nothing but increase in numbers and decrease in value, if they are not redeemable in anything tangible. Deeds and Titles are redeemable in houses and cars.
@Deefburger
All right, you’ve changed the subject again. You are no longer talking about the law — the subject of this post — but the broader question of money creation and the value of money. That’s a legitimate discussion, as I’ve already stated.
So I submit this fact: gold and silver have no inherent value but have a value just as arbitrary as fiat money. People like gold, there are some industrial applications, but those are contingincies. Gold and silver could lose 100% of their value under the right circumstances. (Thomas More made this point 500 years ago in his satire _Utopia._)
I suggest your argument that gold and silver are “good money” is not valid. Under different circumstances, they too could be defined as “bad money.”
Under the current circumstances, the ones we live in, gold and silver have significant and stable value. Moore’s argument was if the supply of gold or silver was unlimited, they would have no real value.
FRN’s meet that criteria now.
The planet is limited in it’s capacity to supply silver and gold. If all of the planet’s silver, (43Billion ounces USGS reports) was turned into lawful Dollar money, U.S. Silver Dollars, It would be equal to only 37Billion Dollars.
As it is, in our current conditions, The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States, Just the one bank, has exceeded the capacity of the planet to support, lawfully. Just the 1.5Trillion “Dollar” Bailout is more than an order of magnitude greater than the planet’s ability to sustain in a 1000:1 reserve.
Add in gold, and the number goes up a bit by another 20Billion (assuming 10$ U.S. gold coins)
Convert those based upon the “exchange rates” of the London Spot price for those metals and the total value = 24Trillion dollars FRN.
In our current conditions, that is just ONE central bank, and ONE currency. There are several majors, and a hundred minors that are dependent upon those same scarce planetary reserves.
All of the major central banks are buying gold and silver, slowly, because the currencies have exceeded the capacity of the planet to support, and they know that their currencie is invented and has no value of it’s own, hence the “reserve” in fractional reserve.
If gold and silver could be printed up as needed, you might have an argument with Moore’s logic. As it is, the Moon is not made of gold, Everest is not made of gold, there is not a sea of silver anywhere to be seen, and so, on planet Earth, gold and silver remain scarce and valuable.
The only valuables that the banks can support their currencies with, in the amounts they are producing, are the tangible assets of land and cars, and tools and factories. Their method of obtaining those things is loans and note production, followed by foreclosure and repossession if necessary.
But the capacity of the planet to support their numbers and give even a hint of a reserve has reached it’s practical limits, it’s lawful limits. The Earth is scarce. Fiat money is not, and never will be, so your argument that gold and silver, under the right conditions would be worth zero is the current condition of the bank notes in circulation.
> “Under the current circumstances, the ones we live in, gold and silver have significant and stable value.”
Good. You accept that gold and silver have arbitrary value, just the same a fiat money, bonds, etc. Therefore, gold and silver are no better or worse than fiat money.
We agree, then, that all of your arguments have no factual basis.
We agree to nothing. Their value is not arbitrary. It is measurable and tangible. So are houses and cars.
Fiat money has no tangible value beyond it’s paper. I wipe my butt with paper.
You have proven yourself to be an idiot.
> “Their value is not arbitrary. It is measurable and tangible.”
Once again, your argument makes no sense. The stock market posts prices and volumes every day, but these variables fluctuate every day based on circumstances. And let me remind you, if the value of something goes to zero, you can measure that, but measuring it does not give the thing a value it does not have. We can measure the distance between stars, but that doesn’t mean there’s necessarily anything between the stars.
Let’s face it, you have a thing against fiat money, which is okay with me, but you won’t accept facts or logic that get in the way of your grand paranoid conspiracy theory.
You lose.
What has been lost in this conversation is the concept of ‘Lawful Consideration’: “When at the desire of the promisor, the promisee has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or abstain from doing something, such an act or abstinence or promise is called consideration for the promise.”
In short, Consideration means quid pro quo i.e. something in return. Money created out of thin air does not constitute ‘something’ i.e. it is not a thing of substance against which a thing of substance such as a property is held.