Credit River - follow the money?

[Shoonra]

I cited court decisions that provided the background facts of this stunt. Considerably more fact that I've seen supporting some exotic theories articulated on this website.

I have no doubt that Daly not only ghosted the "decision" but also Nixonized the date in order to try to circumvent a writ from a real court.

Mahoney had no legal training (none is required for a JP), and therefore all the legal references, and probably the rest of the "decision", was written by Daly. Juries, whether in JP courts or higher up, do not make decisions about the interpretation - much less the validity - of laws.

As I understand it, Daly was being sued by a bank in a real court, and thought (rather desperately) that he could derail the case if this JP tried to "order" the real court not to accept the bank's filing fee. It definitely didn't work. As far as I know, there was no participation by the bank in the JP court.

I have no reason to suppose that Mahoney's death was foul play.

As you have conceded, a JP decision (and I might add a jury, rather than a judicial, decision), even if genuine, does not create legal precedent.

[skeptic62]

But did that bank president, Lawrence V. Morgan actually admit to his bank's creation of money out of thin air via bookkeeping entry when testifying at Credit River?

So what and who cares? Why does it matter? OJ said he did not kill his wife while testifying under oath. Clinton said he "did not have sex with that woman" under oath while testifying.

Furthermore, nobody knows what was said because there was no court reporter.

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Juries, whether in JP courts or higher up, do not make decisions about the interpretation - much less the validity - of laws.

This is because most jurors do not know what their rights are, due to being dumbed down. One reason jurors are excused is because they are informed and know all about jury nullification. The jury has both a right to determine innocense of the accused and if the law in question should be a nullified as well due to being bad law.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by skeptic62

So what and who cares? Why does it matter? OJ said he did not kill his wife while testifying under oath. Clinton said he "did not have sex with that woman" under oath while testifying.

Furthermore, nobody knows what was said because there was no court reporter.

Watch out folks... I have read the transcript of the trial. Somebody telling you there was no court reporter is spinning things or just plain lying.

Someone may wish to verify the rumor that the case has been sealed* by calling Audrey Brown (952) 496-8200 (or 8209) and asking about case jacket #19054. Otherwise I have already been around the block several times about the CRMD. It should cost $10 I believe for the entire transcript as last I spoke with Audrey it is not charged by the page but by the document. It is great reading.

www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P1.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P2.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P3.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P4.jpg



Regards,

David Merrill.


* If it is recently sealed after so many decades I wonder if using it in a few dozen Libels of Review had anything to do with that?

There was no appeal in the Credit River Case as appeals are unknown in common law and when Mahoney refused the appeal, he did not let the common law court become a merchant court under admiralty with the use of commercial paper-ghost money.

‘… Whether brought in a State, or in a United States' court, ANY "appeal" as to Law or Fact filed in ANY "appellate" court, is being brought in the admiralty jurisdiction because an "appeal" in the technical sense, was unknown to the common-Law, and it is the name of proceedings for the review of cases in equity, and in the ecclesiastical and admiralty courts. See HANDBOOK OF COMMON-LAW PLEADING (Hornbook Series) by: Benjamin J. Shipman, First Copyright 1894, Last Copyright 1923, Sections 337-338, page 537.

If a Judge files for, and/or pays a State or a United States' federal income tax, pursuant to the Public Salaries Tax Act (1939) et sqq. not only do Conflicts-Of-Interest arise by way of the Separation-Of-Powers doctrine, but there also exists a blatant violation and abrogation of Article III., Section l wherein:

"... The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall ... receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

A Judge, who is subject to the jurisdiction of the executive branch, cannot be impartial in matters concerning such executive branch. This statement is fully and completely realized in: Lord et al. v. Kelly et al. Civ. A. 63-932 240 F.Supp 67 at Page 69 (1965).

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by free_martha

There was no appeal in the Credit River Case as appeals are unknown in common law and when Mahoney refused the appeal, he did not let the common law court become a merchant court under admiralty with the use of commercial paper-ghost money.

‘… Whether brought in a State, or in a United States' court, ANY "appeal" as to Law or Fact filed in ANY "appellate" court, is being brought in the admiralty jurisdiction because an "appeal" in the technical sense, was unknown to the common-Law, and it is the name of proceedings for the review of cases in equity, and in the ecclesiastical and admiralty courts. See HANDBOOK OF COMMON-LAW PLEADING (Hornbook Series) by: Benjamin J. Shipman, First Copyright 1894, Last Copyright 1923, Sections 337-338, page 537.

If a Judge files for, and/or pays a State or a United States' federal income tax, pursuant to the Public Salaries Tax Act (1939) et sqq. not only do Conflicts-Of-Interest arise by way of the Separation-Of-Powers doctrine, but there also exists a blatant violation and abrogation of Article III., Section l wherein:

"... The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall ... receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

A Judge, who is subject to the jurisdiction of the executive branch, cannot be impartial in matters concerning such executive branch. This statement is fully and completely realized in: Lord et al. v. Kelly et al. Civ. A. 63-932 240 F.Supp 67 at Page 69 (1965).

That is interesting food for thought free_martha. Thank you.

[MADDOG]

TREMENDOUSLY interesting thread, David Merrill, thank you for the info about congress.

Meanwhile, I'd like to jump back in and add that Shoonra posted:

I have no doubt that Daly not only ghosted the "decision" but also Nixonized the date in order to try to circumvent a writ from a real court.

You have no doubt, but you also have no proof. I do respect the fact that we each may have firm beliefs (no doubts) about certain matters.

I have no doubt that a bank president named Lawrence V. Morgan told the truth about the manner in which his bank created money to lend for Jerome Daly's mortgage. I've been convinced by a number of publications, several of which were published and available on Federal Reserve websites until members of the general public began to realize what they really meant, and started using them in support of their arguments in court. I realize that courts are not supporting "vapor money" theories in their decisions, but if the vapor money theory is so bogus, why was "Two Faces of Debt" removed from the Federal Reserve webpages?

Shoonra's comparison of Morgan's testimony to OJ's testimony is really off point, because OJ was a defendant, while Morgan was a witness on behalf of the Plaintiff. Not that plaintiff's witnesses never lie (I'm sure they often do) ... but OJ's lies were obviously intended to absolve him, and Pres Clinton lied to cover his own philandering butt, while Morgan's truths were offered despite the fact that his testimony actually hurt his employer in this case. If anything, it appears that the bank pres failed to lie and protect his employer... he told the truth instead. How refreshing.

Also - whether a court reporter was present at the Credit River Decision or not, there has been no contention about the accepted fact that a jury rendered the decision, and that the JP merely presided. Shoonra's suspicion that Daly wrote the summary and opinion and influenced Mahoney to sign it remains unproven - unless some other proof exists which has not been presented so far. If so, bring it on!

[skeptic62]

Even if you are right, so what? Like I pointed out before, OJ testified under oath that he did not kill his wife. The jury found him not guilty. That doesn't mean he did not kill his wife. It really doesn't matter what the bank manager said in a justice of the peace court in Credit River, Minn. Please prove how it makes a hill of beans difference to anything or anyone.

[MADDOG]

Skeptic wrote:

Even if you are right, so what? Like I pointed out before, OJ testified under oath that he did not kill his wife. The jury found him not guilty. That doesn't mean he did not kill his wife.

You again attempt to compare a Defendant (OJ) lying under oath and escaping the consequences of his criminal actions because he was able to fool a jury, to a witness for the Plaintiff testifying about what the Plaintiff's organization does in the act of creating and lending money. That comparison is apples and oranges.

And I love the way you quatlosers talk out of both sides of your collective mouths. You love to point out that the courts do not support the "vapor money theory", and then you point out that juries and courts do often render incorrect judgments and verdicts (a-la-OJ's acquittal). It serves your purpose to point out erronious jury verdicts when we discuss the Credit River jury's decision, but not when we discuss verdicts against the vapor money theory.

So why in the heck should we put much stock in the decisions against parties that bring up creation of money out of thin air, when the courts are protecting the banks by granting protective orders when opposing parties file requests for production of the bank's general ledgers?

When it suits certain of your purposes you like to say: "The courts don't agree with you and they always rule against the vapor money theory" and when it suits another purpose you like to point out that courts and judges and juries often render erronious verdicts.

It really doesn't matter what the bank manager said in a justice of the peace court in Credit River, Minn.

If he was telling the truth it certainly does matter, because that truth is being systematically obfuscated in an ongoing effort to suppress it.

Please prove how it makes a hill of beans difference to anything or anyone.

The amount of debt elimination attempts going on and the number of individual economic collapses taking place in this country as a result of a banking/lending industry built on the creation of money out of thin air. Notice that when people become informed about this, they tend to become outraged. The DE scammers who rip people off are scum, I agree... AND so is the CC industry that lures people into ridiculous amounts of debt because it has little to lose except ongoing interest payments on vapor money.

Obviously the testimony of that Bank President does matter to a great many people, judging by the amount of attention it keeps getting after all these years - in spite of such ongoing and intense attempts to squelch the topic.

[David Merrill]

This lawyer seems to have digitized most or all of the CRMD case.

Get a looksee! I think the transcript of the trial is probably there too.

http://fights4rights.com/1/daily.php