CREDIT RIVER DECISION

Posted By: watcher51445 [Send E-Mail]

Date: Saturday, 17-Nov-2007 08:19:42

In Response To: Re: US MINT PRESS RELEASE: USE OF LIBERTY DOLLAR AS MONEY IS A CRIME (watcher51445)

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

+ +

+ +

RMN is an RA production.

Articles In This Thread

THERE WAS A LIBERTY DOLLAR RAID IN IDAHO TOO (views: 1279)

Rayelan -- Friday, 16-Nov-2007 21:24:07

US MINT PRESS RELEASE: USE OF LIBERTY DOLLAR AS MONEY IS A CRIME (views: 1413)

Rayelan -- Friday, 16-Nov-2007 21:26:35

THEN WHY ISN'T CANADIAN MONEY ILLEAGALE (views: 773)

pinkcomputercat -- Friday, 16-Nov-2007 22:31:27

HMN: CANADA'S INFERIORITY TO AMERICA- 5 MIN SOUND BITE (views: 583)

tangodog -- Saturday, 17-Nov-2007 06:10:42

Re: THEN WHY ISN'T CANADIAN MONEY ILLEAGALE (views: 643)

watcher51445 -- Saturday, 17-Nov-2007 10:13:48

SILVER DOLLARS ARE LEGAL TENDER SOMEONE IS LYING (views: 884)

kbcjedi -- Friday, 16-Nov-2007 23:45:37

Re: SILVER DOLLARS ARE LEGAL TENDER SOMEONE IS LYING (views: 814)

suI_juris -- Saturday, 17-Nov-2007 11:14:28

Re: US MINT PRESS RELEASE: USE OF LIBERTY DOLLAR AS MONEY IS A CRIME (views: 977)

watcher51445 -- Saturday, 17-Nov-2007 08:02:31

CREDIT RIVER DECISION (views: 5168)

watcher51445 -- Saturday, 17-Nov-2007 08:19:42

Legal Topics: The Credit River Case

Martin V. Mahoney was a justice of the peace in Scott County, Minnesota in the 1960s. The 1967/1968 Minnesota Legislative Manual states:

"Justices of the peace are elected for two-year terms in townships and in cities and villages which do not have municipal courts. Justices of the peace have jurisdiction over actions arising within a county when the amount involved does not exceed $100 for civil cases, and when the punishment or fine does not exceed $100 or three months' imprisonment in criminal cases."

Because the decisions of these justice of the peace courts are not precedential (that is, other courts do not have to follow them), they are not published.

Jerome Daly was an attorney in Minnesota and also the defendant in an unlawful detainer action in the justice of the peace court in Credit River Township (Scott County) where Martin V. Mahoney was the justice of the peace. In this case, First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly, the bank was seeking possession of property after a mortgage foreclosure. The jury decided against the bank. The

landowner's defense had been that the bank had not lent him any actual money, but had simply created credit on its books, and therefore, since nothing of value had been advanced by the bank, it was not entitled to the property that had been given as security for the loan. Although he did not ultimately prevail, this case has been celebrated by many of those groups and individuals that practice "law on the edge" as we call it in our Pathfinder to Law on the Edge: Sovereign Citizens, Common Law Courts, Patriot Groups, Tax Protesters, et al..

The file for this case has been scanned and the documents are available at http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/CreditRiver/CreditRiver.html.

Related litigation did produce published decisions from the Minnesota Supreme Court. In Re Jerome Daly, 284 Minn.567, 171 N.W.2d 818 (1969), is excerpted below:

On July 11, 1969, Mr. Justice C. Donald Peterson, acting for the Minnesota Supreme Court, directed Martin V. Mahoney, justice of the peace of Credit River Township, Scott County, Minnesota, and Jerome Daly, counsel for plaintiff in an action brought by one Leo Zurn against one Roger D. Derrick and the Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis, to show cause why they should not be permanently restrained from further proceedings in the justice court. In addition, Justice Peterson ordered a stay of all further proceedings before the justice of the peace pending final determination of the questions raised by Northwestern National Bank's petition for writ of prohibition.

Although the stay order of Justice Peterson was served on the justice of the peace and Mr. Daly on July 11, 1969, they intentionally and deliberately disregarded it in this way: On July 14, 1969, the justice of the peace, upon motion of Mr. Daly, entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order for judgment in favor of Zurn. In response to our order of August 12, 1969, directing the justice of the peace and Mr. Daly to show cause why they should not be held in constructive contempt of the Supreme Court of Minnesota for this conduct, Mr. Daly appeared personally in his own behalf before this court on August 21. He advised the court that he had been authorized to represent the justice of the peace in the proceedings. After noting that he was making a special appearance, Mr. Daly, an attorney at law admitted to practice in this state, acknowledged that both he and the justice of the peace intentionally violated the order of Justice Peterson because in their opinion neither this court nor Justice Peterson had jurisdiction to issue it.

Although the death of the justice of the peace on August 22, 1969, has rendered the proceedings as against him moot, it is our judgment that the conduct of Jerome Daly was contumacious. It is the order

of this court that he be temporarily suspended from the practice of law in the courts of this state effective October 1, 1969.

Jerome Daly was subsequently disbarred. See In re Jerome Daly, 291 Minn. 488, 189 N.W.2d 176 (1971). In that decision, the court noted that:

respondent's persistent and continuing attacks on our national monetary system can hardly be regarded as zealous advocacy or a good-faith effort to test the validity of repeated decisions of courts of record. For, as found by the referee, up to the time of his findings and recommendations respondent had avoided payment of any Federal income tax for 1965 and subsequent years on the asserted ground that he has not received gold and silver coin and, therefore, had no earnings that were taxable. Also, he has taken personal advantage of the system he attacks by borrowing money from a bank to purchase lakeside property, only to subsequently defeat the bank's repossession after mortgage foreclosure by taking the position that the bank's extension of credit was unlawful, obligating him neither to pay the debt nor to surrender possession following expiration of the time to redeem. As detailed in the referee's finding, we regard the tactics employed by respondent in the unlawful detainer proceedings before the justice of the peace as not only unprofessional but reprehensible.

The misconduct found by the referee, and demonstrated by respondent's oral declarations before this court in violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics, reflects professional irresponsibility to such a degree as to render respondent totally unfit to continue to discharge the duties of an attorney.

All proceedings in the justice court in the underlying matter were declared a nullity in Zurn v. Northwestern National Bank, 284 Minn. 573, 170 N.W.2d 600 (1969). The same happened in another case brought by Jerome Daly, Daly v. Savage State Bank, 285 Minn. 503, 171 N.W.2d 218 (1969).

These cases were recently cited in Sneed v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46536, 2007 WL 1851674 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2007). The court noted the frivolous nature of the plaintiff's argument relying on these cases and went on to say:

Furthermore, the Minnesota cases cited by Plaintiff are not only unreported, but they have been vacated by the Minnesota Supreme Court in reported decisions. See In re Daly, 284 Minn. 567, 171 N.W.2d 818; Zurn v. Northwestern Nat. Bank of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 600, 284 Minn. 573 (Minn. 1969); Daly v. Savage State Bank, 171 N.W.2d 218, 218, 285 Minn. 503, 503 (Minn. 1969). Plaintiff is hereby admonished she must not cite any decision under which Justice Martin Mahoney purported to

question the validity of federal currency or the Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve Act, nor may she cite any opinion or decision as authoritative which no longer has authoritative status.

Martin Vincent Mahoney was born in Minnesota on February 22, 1915 and died August 22, 1969 in Scott County Minnesota. Jerome Daly was born July 11, 1926 in Minnesota and died March 23, 1996 in Martinez, California.

DISCLAIMER: As librarians and not lawyers, we can suggest resources but cannot give legal advice (such as which form to file), or legal opinions, (such as how a statute might apply to particular facts.) To do so could be considered the unauthorized practice of law. Even though we try to suggest materials that will be of help, further research is usually required to find a complete and correct answer. For many questions, the best answer may be to consult an attorney. For links to resources on finding an attorney, see http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/selfhelp.html#atty.

The Minnesota Credit River Decision

[2.23.08 Beginning of transcribed document.]

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN JUSTICE COURT

COUNTY OF SCOTT TOWNSHIP OF CREDIT RIVER

MARTIN V. MAHONEY, JUSTICE

First National Bank of Montgomery,

Plaintiff

vs. JUDGMENT AND DECREE

Jerome Daly, Defendant.

The above entitled action came on before the Court and a Jury of 12 on December 7, 1968 at

10:00 A.M. Plaintiff appeared by its President Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by its

Counsel Theodore R. Mellby. Defendant appeared on his own behalf.

A Jury of Talesmen were called, impanneled [sic] 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 [sic]. 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 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 limiting 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.

6. That Defendant is awarded costs in the sum of $75.00 and execution is hereby issued

therefore.

7. A 10 day stay is granted.

8. 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 [Signed:]

MARTIN V. MAHONEY

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE

Version 1.0-release 230/688 Finality of Settl