Credit River - follow the money?

Originally Posted by MADDOG

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


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.

[

Maddog: It is interesting that you point to the obvious. Shoonra has provided no proof of his/her claims. So What? It does not matter on this forum... as far as I have been able to determine, no-one has provided any PROOF of the theories injected into this forum. It appears to be all conjecture and personal opinion.. either that of the author in this forum or that of some idiot make believe judge from one of the alleged courts.

Jerry

[mrg]

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

Maddog: It is interesting that you point to the obvious.
Shoonra has provided no proof of his/her claims.

So What?

It does not matter on this forum... as far as I have been able to determine, no-one has provided any PROOF of the theories injected into this forum.

It appears to be all conjecture and personal opinion.. either that of the author in this forum or that of some idiot make believe judge from one of the alleged courts.

Jerry

I get your point, however:

Conjecture and personal opinion is not theory.

Theory is penultimate to Law.

Einstein could not prove the theory of relativity, which is why it is not the Law of relativity.

The theory seems to be a quite useful working theory though.

Conjecture and personal opinion do not rise to the level of theory because they generally have not undergone the rigorous methodology for arriving at a working theory.

Theory must have basis in observable fact; opinion and conjecture may have basis in fact, but need not.

Sometimes theory is the best we can do, and if applied theory works then we may be able to produce a nice mushroom cloud, which still may not prove theory as law, but shows evidence of valid applicability as penultimate to law.

I do think there are at least a few members whose thoughts appear to at least approach the level of theory.

Again, theory (in its proper term) is penultimate to law, and is often as close to proof as we can get.

(The idiot judges offer only opinion, and even label it as such.)

As far as offering proof regarding many issues discussed, look at what we often have to work with: compelled personal liability (physically imposed by de facto agents of vacant offices) based upon prima facie evidence of law.

At least many of us are honestly looking for proof in or of law, or at least its legitimate penultimate.

[Shoonra]

Supposedly this "Credit River Decision" was the product of a jury. At least that's how Daly's story goes.
Anyone ever able to identify any members of this "jury"? Any member of this "jury" ever come forward to describe what happened?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Supposedly this "Credit River Decision" was the product of a jury. At least that's how Daly's story goes.
Anyone ever able to identify any members of this "jury"? Any member of this "jury" ever come forward to describe what happened?

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

Pretty feeble Shoonra.

But if you have raised any suspicions in the minds of Readers call Audrey Brown at (952) 496-8200/8209 and ask about File #19054.

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

According to this researcher/attorney standing upon his CRMD interpretation in part for promotion to Circuit Judge, the case went into appeal and was settled without hearing. So all the clutter about the case ever being overturned by the Minnesota Supreme Court is just Quatloser fabrication - that was a subsequent case. I have only glanced at this record, newly available but the far more suspicious aspect is that the settlement was never made clear in the court records.

Isn't that a lot more irregular than not being able to find the names of jurors? You tell us Shoonra? Is it usually easy to find what the terms of settlement were when a dispute is settled, especially when it has allegedly made it to an appeal?

I think if this attorney fellow is correct in his interpretation, then Jerome Daly settled for his home, which means he won and only did that because Martin Mahoney had just been "died under suspicious circumstances". The rumor is that Daly lived in his home for a couple decades which is typically unusual after a sheriff's sale of the property, don't you think?



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

I liked you better when you had me on your Ignore list.

The Leuchtenberger (sp?) pdf files were Very Enlightening. But the crucial question in the so-called Credit River Decision was a scheme by Daly and Mahoney to prevent the Bank from taking the case to a higher court by pretending that FRNs couldn't be used to pay court fees. It is clear from the very fact that the case did get taken up by the District Court that this pretense was rejected.

The higher Courts of Minnesota did not "overturn" the decision as if it had been appealed, they declare the so-called decision a nullity because it was so far outside the jurisdiction of JP court, as well as being contrary to the statute that makes FRNs legal tender. They punished Daly for his part in that circus.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I liked you better when you had me on your Ignore list.

The Leuchtenberger (sp?) pdf files were Very Enlightening. But the crucial question in the so-called Credit River Decision was a scheme by Daly and Mahoney to prevent the Bank from taking the case to a higher court by pretending that FRNs couldn't be used to pay court fees. It is clear from the very fact that the case did get taken up by the District Court that this pretense was rejected.

The higher Courts of Minnesota did not "overturn" the decision as if it had been appealed, they declare the so-called decision a nullity because it was so far outside the jurisdiction of JP court, as well as being contrary to the statute that makes FRNs legal tender. They punished Daly for his part in that circus.

I am sure glad I took you off my Ignore List Shoonra. Your clarification about negotiable was precious for explaining the non-taxable event of non-endorsement:

Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable Federal Reserve Notes of equal value.

The justice of the peace, namely Justice Martin Mahoney is the higher common law jurisdiction. Period.

I would hope if you are interested enough to be reading over on that article of Leuenberger's documents that you might find where FRNs were ever paid (discharged morelike) for the appellate court filing fees? It may be there but I know about the fact in the previous paragraph so the Minnesota Supreme Court and US District Courts had no place ordering the Return anyway. So I am not spending much time studying attorney perspectives.

It looks to me like 50% of Montgomery Oil (outstanding stock) was pledged surety in order to get the cause of the Bank into appeal. Something tells me that is not only substance, but much more than $2 worth of filing fee.

Found it: http://www.suijuris.net/forum/attach...f?d=1157376207

Then according to Leuenberger the cause was settled before any real hearings. Rumor is that Jerome Daly lived in his home until moving to California in 1992 so I imagine that was the settlement and also that according to the dates at a glance, he faced a definite risk of dying by suspicious circumstances and had Mahoney as evidence that risk was for real. - Maybe in that handwritten letter file? I heard from Jerry Maas, the current clerk for Credit River Township that Mahoney left a couple letters of explanation and for contact purposes so people could follow up on that case. I hear he has passed on now.

You considering the CRMD a circus has been a great source of entertainment to me. Not just you but the story spun on Quatloos was the CRMD was overturned by the Minnesota Supreme Court. That was another case Mahoney was presiding over... They do a lot of juxtapositioning like that over there.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Somebody checked the dates in the documentation.

David,


It was. [The settlement was after Victor Mahoney died under suspicious circumstances.]


Jim




On Sep 2, 2006, at 10:00 AM, David Merrill wrote:


I bet that settlement was after Mahoney's suspicious death too. [I speculated that the settlement was for Jerome Daly to move back into his home which really rendered the appeal process a formality if true. But Jim and the documentation do not find any conclusive details about the settlement beyond the date.]