RSS
 


The Jerome Daly Court Case, The Federal Reserve and the Minnesotta Justice of the Peace Court

23 Mar

Here is a great piece of work done by the Above Top Secret Web Site:

Jerome Daly, The Federal Reserve, & The Credit River Decision

Topic started on 18-8-2008 @ 07:57 PM by Jerome_Daly

Ok so I was doing a lot of research on the Federal Reserve and our monetary system as a whole. What I found out, which confirmed my already existing beliefs, was that our system really is a giant hoax. I am referring to after the creation of the Federal Reserve.

I also discovered, although I can’t remember where I found the chart, that there basically was no such thing as inflation prior to 1913 (which was when the Federal Reserve was created). But….this is what I found out last week. This is monumental but only a handful of people know about it. I found out about an old court case (from 1968) that blew the doors open on this whole fraudulent system. I was blown away by the court documents. And yes, I found the actual documents. They are on the law library of Minnesota website.

I’ve seen two brief mentions of this case but there has not been the proper discussion about it and it’s significance. www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us those are where the files are located. I’ll give you a brief summary. Jerome Daly (the Defendant) was an attorney whose house was being foreclosed upon because he stopped paying his mortgage of 14,000 dollars.

The Plaintiff, the First National Bank of Montgomery brought him to court for the foreclosure process. Daly decided to defend himself since he was a lawyer (and also happened to be a bit of a political activist). Daly’s argument was that he owed the bank nothing because the “consideration” (their monetary fulfillment of their part of the contract) that they put forth to purchase the house was not actually money because the bank created it out of thin air. Now here’s the real kicker. Not only did Daly make this argument but his only witness was the bank manager from the bank.

He got the manger on the stand and got the bank manager to fully and completely admit that they did in fact create the money out of thin air for the mortgage and that this was standard banking practice, not just by their branch or their bank, but by all banks in general. Now….I strongly suggest that you at least read the Judgement and Decree which is the first link of that site above. Here are the truly stunning excerpts from it (which BTW,

I want to remind you are in the Judge’s own words and again this is on a government site so the source is definitely legitimate): “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 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 on and the same Bank, did create the entire $14,0000 in money and credit upon it’s 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 Untied States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this.” “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 lawful consideration in the eyes of the Law to support any thing or upon which any lawful right can be built.”

I did a little digging around to try to find out (besides the obvious reason) why this isn’t well known. Apparently, since this court was a “justice of the peace” court – these cases are not precedent-setting and are therefore not published. Hence, only a tiny number of people know about the case. [e [edit on 18-8-2008 by Jerome_Daly]

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply