This is an old article as you can see.. We must all thank BarnacleBob for his contributions in preserving THE CREDIT RIVER DECISION for us to refer back to as an ANCHOR. [vkd]
------------------------------------------------------------
THE CREDIT RIVER DECISION
#1 02-20-2005
BarnacleBob
Founding Member Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 9,882
THE CREDIT RIVER DECISION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CREDIT RIVER DECISION
INTRODUCTION
A Minnesota Trial Court's decision holding the Federal Reserve Act unconstitutional and VOID; holding the National Banking Act unconstitutional and VOID; declaring a mortgage acquired by the First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota in the regular course of its business, along with the foreclosure and the sheriff's sale, to be VOID.
This decision, which is legally sound, has the effect of declaring all private mortgages on real and personal property, and all U.S. and State bonds held by the Federal Reserve, National and State Banks to be null and VOID. This amounts to an emancipation of this nation from personal, national and State debt purportedly owed to this banking system. Every True American owes it to himself/herself, to his or her country, and to the people of the world for that matter, to study this decision very carefully and to understand it, for upon it hangs the question of freedom or slavery.
A WORD FROM AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE WHO KNEW AND WORKED WITH JUSTICE MARTIN V. MAHONEY, STATE OF MINNESOTA, ABOUT THE CASE.
The "Credit River Decision" handed down by a jury of 12 on a cold day in December, in the Credit River Township Hall, was an experience that I'll never forget.
The Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court had phoned me a week before the trial and asked me if I would be an associate justice in assisting Justice Martin V. Mahoney since he had never handled a jury trial before. I accepted, and it took me two hours to get my car running in the 22 below zero weather.
I got to the court room about 30 minutes before trial, and helped get the wood stove going, since the trial was being held in an unheated store room of a general store. This was the first time I met Justice Mahoney, and I was impressed with his no nonsense manner of handling matters before him. My OB was to help pick the jury, and to keep Jerome Daly and the attorney representing the Bank of Montgomery from engaging in a fist fight. The court room was highly charged, and the Jury was all business.
The banker testified about the mortgage loan given to Jerome Daly, but then Daly cross examined the banker about the creating of money "out of thin air," and the banker admitted that this was standard banking practice. When Justice Mahoney heard the banker testify that he could "create money out of thin air," Mahoney said, "It sounds like fraud to me." I looked at the faces of the jurors, and they were all agreeing with Mahoney by shaking their heads and by the looks on their faces.
I must admit that up until that point, I really didn't believe Jerome's theory, and thought he was making this up. After I heard the testimony of the banker, my mouth had dropped open in shock, and I was in complete disbelief. There was no doubt in my mind that the Jury would find for Daly.
Jerome Daly had taken on the banks, the Federal Reserve Banking System, and the money lenders, and had won.
It is now twenty eight years since this "Landmark Decision," and Justice Mahoney is quoted more often than any Supreme Court justice ever was. The money boys that run the "private Federal Reserve Bank" soon got back at Mahoney by poisoning him in what appeared to have been a fishing boat accident (but with his body pumped full of poison) in June of 1969, less than 6 months later.
Both Jerome Daly and Justice Martin V. Mahoney are truly the greatest men that I have ever had the pleasure to meet. The Credit River Decision was and still is the most important legal decision ever decided by a Jury.
Bill Drexler
THE MAHONEY CREDIT RIVER DECISION
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. See Ansheuser-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.
http://worldnewsstand.net/money/the-mahoney-case.html
JEROME DALY'S OWN ENTRY
REGARDING JUSTICE MAHONEY'S MEMORANDUM
FORWARD: The above Judgment was entered by the Court on December 9, 1968. The issue there was simple - Nothing in the law gave the Banks the right to create money on their books. The Bank filed a Notice of Appeal within 10 days. The Appeals statutes must be strictly followed, otherwise the District Court does not acquire Jurisdiction upon Appeal. To effect the Appeal the Bank had to deposit $2.00 with the Clerk within 10 days for payment to the Justice when he made his return to the District Court. The Bank deposited two $1.00 Federal Reserve Notes. The Justice refused the Notes and refused to allow the Appeal upon the grounds that the Notes were unlawful and void for any purpose. The Decision is addressed to the legality of these Notes and the Federal Reserve System. The Cases of Edwards v. Kearnzey and Craig vs Missouri set out in the decision should be studied very carefully as they bear on the inviolability of Contracts. This is the Crux of the whole issue. Jerome Daly.
SPECIAL NOTATION. Justice Mahoney denied the use of Federal Reserve Notes, since they represent debt instruments, not true money, from being used to pay for the appeal process itself. In order to get this overturned, since the bank's appeal without the payment being recognized was out of time, it would have required that the Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota bring a Title 42, Section 1983 action against the judicial act of Justice Mahoney for a violation of the Constitution of the United States under color of law or authority, and if successful, have the case remanded back to him to either retry the case or allow the appeal to go through. But the corrupt individuals behind the bank(s) were unable to ever elicit such a decision from any federal court due to the fact that because of their vile hatred for him and what he had done to them and their little Queen's Scheme, had him murdered (same as them murdering him) just about 6 months later. And so, the case stands, just as it was. Amazingly, if they hadn't been so arrogant about the value of their federal reserve notes and paid the Justice just 2 measly silver dollars, or else 4 measly half dollars, or else 8 measly quarters, or else 20 measly dimes, or else 40 measly nickels, or else 200 measly pennies, they could have had their appeal and would not have had to get blood on their hands.
As it is, they are now known for their bloody ways, and the day will come when the American people will reap vengeance upon them for such a heinous and villainous act. Amen.
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/money/jerome-daly.html
__________________
"Federal reserve notes shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, or at any Federal Reserve bank.-USC Title 12 Chapter 3, Section 411
The information contained here was gathered from sources deemed reliable, however, no claim is made as to its accuracy or content. This does not contain specific recommendations to buy or sell at particular prices or times, nor should any of the examples presented be deemed as such.
BarnacleBob
View Public Profile
Find all posts by BarnacleBob
#2 02-20-2005
BarnacleBob
Founding Member Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 9,882
Re: THE CREDIT RIVER DECISION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do. What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of God, I will do." - Edward Everett Hale
FREE Chapters from "America's Hope"
Tom has selected information from 15 different chapters (out of 63) for you to read, to study, to learn what is really going on with banking today.
Table of Contents
Definitions
Chapter 1 High School Pop Quiz
Chapter 2 Secret Banker's Meeting
Chapter 5 United States Notes vs. Federal Reserve Notes
Chapter 8 Intent of Agreement
Chapter 9 Bank Auditor from Texas
Chapter 16 The Signature
Chapter 21 Money Versus Wealth
Chapter 23 False Witness: Form vs. Substance
Chapter 27 Short Stories
Chapter 28 Equal Protection Under the Law...
Chapter 29 The Bankers' War
Chapter 30 The Original and Lawful 13th Amendment...
Chapter 34 What Causes Recessions and Depressions?
Chapter 35 I Fear Bankers More than Standing Armies
Chapter 40 Is there a Media Blackout?
Chapter 43 Secret Banker's Manual Reveals All
http://www.bankhonesty.com/freechapters.shtml
BEYOND OUR CONSENT
"A History of Secret Power, Deception
and Abandonment of Freedom in America."
by
Robert Harris Brevig
With a compelling Foreword by Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, U.S.A.F. Ret.
http://www.nationmakers.com/chap4.htm
__________________
"Federal reserve notes shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, or at any Federal Reserve bank.-USC Title 12 Chapter 3, Section 411
The information contained here was gathered from sources deemed reliable, however, no claim is made as to its accuracy or content. This does not contain specific recommendations to buy or sell at particular prices or times, nor should any of the examples presented be deemed as such.
BarnacleBob
View Public Profile
Find all posts by BarnacleBob
#3 02-20-2005
Hypertiger
Banned Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,611
Re: THE CREDIT RIVER DECISION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rant time.
Yes you will be free to starve to death without a free lunch system to feed you...
It a comedy...
Your ability to exist has been created out of thin air...By the second every second...tick tick tick...Stop it and you return into thin air at a rapid rate.
Show me one civilization that ever existed where the master (employer) split the profits equally between himself and all his slaves (employees)
Or the latest word play...(Master/employer) Server and (Slave/employee) client
This is just more free lunch lunacy...
Modern Banks as they are called have been creating credit out of thin air globally for over 600 years...
There is almost no difference between banking operations now and back 600 years ago.
It is unconstutional for you to even exist...
Law of the jungle kill or be killed comes back into play...Warlords and such...
I've studied civilizations all the way back to the first ones and they are all hocus pocus...
Everyone of them was based on a lie powered to fight truth...until maximum potential power was reached...Then poof...Thanks for the memories...
You are free now...walk to the middle of nowhere and construct a city state out of thin air...Oh sorry only GOD can do that...
What does that idiot think? GOD snaps his fingers and cities pop into existance?
Write a book...How to create a Global civilization with a sack of gold and a big spiked club in 1000 years or less...
The current civilization is basicly null and void...
You either take it over and try to salvage what you can and exterminate all resistance or cave it into dust and start from scratch while externinating all resistance...
When this mess implodes our children might be lucky enough to see the other side...
Blame? All the contemptous scum who want something for nothing. You think gold is going to rain from the sky?
The rich or I suppose all the poor are to blame yet again.
How about everyone is a complete and total moron...Blame the morons which is everyone...
Totally gone.
Hypertiger
View Public Profile
Find all posts by Hypertiger
#4 02-20-2005
skyvike
Founding Member Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Third Rock from the Sun
Posts: 2,723
Re: THE CREDIT RIVER DECISION
: Again, I ask: DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "LAWFUL
: MONEY" and "LEGAL TENDER!?"
: Well! It appears the US MINT PRESS RELEASE has not known the
: difference either..OR perhaps they do and they are
: frightened 'spitless' in the knowing THE GLOBAL BANKING and
: PEOPLE HAVE grown overly tired of being hoodwinked by
: "Legal Tender" as they prefer calling THOSE
: WORTHLESS FEDERAL RESERVE BANK NOTES (I.O.U's) and the
: predatory banking practices that go with those FRBN'S.
: It is strongly believed the "CONFISCATION" of
: "LAWFUL MONEY" backed by CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
: REQUIREMENTS described in Article 1. Section 10., was
: 'without lawful jurisdiction'..
: Under CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, The TENDER LAWS require "equal
: value".. Lets say..you have a parcel of land
: consisting of 10 acres with "VALUE" of $5,000.00
: per acre. THE LAW OF THE LAND requires equal value. Equal
: value therefore would be the $5,000.00 multiplied by 10 and
: that would be paid in VALUE "gold or silver" per
: Article 1. Section 10.. Value for Value...
: The CREDIT RIVER DECISION which we posted a while back on
: RumorMillNews supports the before-mentioned statement..
: Senior Counsel Russell Munk of the U.S. Dept. of the
: Treasury's letter to Mr. Dale also supports the
: before-mentioned statement.
: Many years ago when working with 'my' 104th Congress as I
: encouraged them to get to know the Constitution and get
: familiar with it's Original Purpose and Intent.. I
: forwarded on to Congress-Person, Ms. Helen Chenoweth,
: Congressman Ron Paul and others a copy of 12 U.S.C. Section
: 111, and pointed out to these young people: "12 U.S.C.
: Section 111 allows the Federal Reserve Bank to walk in the
: front door of the U.S. Dept. of the Treasury with 'legal
: tender' and out the back door with LAWFUL MONEY of Gold and
: Silver.
: This being the case; We do not owe A U.S. DEBT it is on
: PRE-PAY evidenced by the I.O.U'S.. i.e., FEDERAL RESERVE
: NOTES being LEGAL TENDER collecting LAWFUL MONEY OF GOLD
: AND SILVER from THE TREASURY TRUST of WE THE PEOPLE.
: The TREASURY "TRUST" of the U.S. Dept of the
: Treasury DOES EXIST.. you will find it mentioned by
: President Roosevelt in U.S. STATUTES AT LARGE. VOL. XLIX p
: 620 et seq in THE OLD AGE PENSION ACT.
: Considering THE OLD AGE PENSION ACT is THE SOCIAL SECURITY of
: all of us here known as Americans (of the U.S. and
: Continental Americas) you might want to know what happened
: to SOCIAL SECURITY that Hillary and the others keep saying
: they are going to do so much about.. You can read it at
: http://www.theantechamber.net/Mirror/StatutoryInstrument1997.html
: We have another problem about to present it's self over those
: "Counterfeit" COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS
: which GOLDMAN SACHS is up to its eyeballs in involvement
: with the MUSLIM LADY in the Philippines [
: http://www.theantechamber.net/V_K_Durham/More911FinancialTerror.htm
: ]..
: I still maintain; HOW MUCH INTERNATIONAL DISGRACE do WE the
: People have to 'suffer' while these individuals go
: unpunished?
: There is one hell of a lot of difference between LAWFUL MONEY
: and LEGAL TENDER.. and that is why RON PAUL is fighting as
: hard as he can to GET RID OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANKING
: SYSTEM..
: Baron Rothschild 'kicked the bucket' when he discovered his
: banks were holding counterfeit COLLATERALIZED DEBT
: OBLIGATIONS which were backed by nothing more than the THIN
: AIR his FEDERAL RESERVE BANKING is backed on..and that is
: over $20 TRILLION and GROWING..., and this TRUST is not
: going to cover the FEDERAL RESERVE'S BACKSIDE..
: We tend to go with RON PAUL.
: V.K. Durham, CEO
: Durham Holding Trust, Tias 12087
: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=113310
Serving Freedom
and Liberty
