Credit River - follow the money?

The Mafia says – follow the money. Maybe the question we should be asking is where is the substance in the credit money of account?

“…back to Jerome Daly. Why was it that the bank declined to offer something besides the Federal Reserve Notes such as coin, or a United States Note, for the appeal fee? Besides the obvious reason that it would be acquiescing to the judge's decision, even more obviously to pay in something besides a Federal Reserve Note would be to take the case out of the equitable jurisdiction created by the Note and " make the issues triable by jury at law, upon the very delivery of the equivalent of specie and not of a bill of exchange.

What Judge Mahoney really told the bank was that the Court was no trading pit or market place to be indebted to equitable notes.

In short, the Court was not a Merchant, and could not be compelled to be made a merchant.

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxe...0INSTRU MENTS

[David Merrill]

In short, the Court was not a Merchant, and could not be compelled to be made a merchant.

Magnificent rephrasing.

I read that Jerome Daly had to recuse two justices of the peace prior to Martin Mahoney because of conflict of interest. By the terminology and model you propose, they were both recused because they were merchants and would have run merchant courts.

Additionally Mahoney and Daly proceeded to help subsequent foreclosure victims until they were shut down by the merchants. Kind of like Jesus Christ shut down by the contraction of the drachma. The priests had become merchants who would handle the Temple affairs in whatever donations but would only collect the Temple Tax in drachma and shekel coinage. They would franchise the drachma to the moneychangers who would charge inflated prices to the pilgrims.

All that king of Israel stuff really meant nothing to the Romans and was by comparison of minor relevance to the Herodian priests. It was when he disrupted commerce among the merchants that he got into real trouble.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Magnificent rephrasing.
[cut]

All that king of Israel stuff really meant nothing to the Romans and was by
comparison of minor relevance to the Herodian priests. It was when he disrupted
commerce among the merchants that he got into real trouble.


Regards,

David Merrill.

There were some Romans to whom the words of Jesus meant a great deal.
Judge not the whole family of Romans according to te few to whom the
events of the day meant nothing.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by free_martha

Maybe the question we should be asking is where is the substance in the credit money of account?

(No maybe about it, I have been asking, and those in "accountable" positions of "responsibility," who should know, do not answer.

(An Amendment V issue?)

Their lawyers (the "judicial power?") seem to have consistently opined that this is a "frivolous" and "inadmissable" question, or at least so I have been told by some "lawyers" entertaining that they hold court herein.

Could the "substance" possibly be related to the substantial product of energy applied to labor by flesh and blood human beings compelled to accept these "obligations?")

“…back to Jerome Daly.

What Judge Mahoney really told the bank was that the Court was no trading pit or market place to be indebted to equitable notes.

In short, the Court was not a Merchant, and could not be compelled to be made a merchant.

That is really nice work. Thanks.

There is nothing new under the sun, and it appears that the sun has never set on the Roman Empire as feudalism is alive and prospering today.

Like they say, history is the best teacher and look what happened to Jesus when he shut down the moneychangers … it is apt when compared with the Credit River.

mrg, the only crime that exists is impeding commerce, and officers of the court, and the words of ART-ifice with which are used to describe any impediment of intercourse-commerce, as "frivolous" and "inadmissable" in a merchant court.

Could the "substance" possibly be related to the substantial product of energy applied to labor by flesh and blood human beings compelled to accept these "obligations? … what else is there????????

The quatlosers like to claim that the later Minnesota Supreme Court decision against Jerome Daly declared the Credit River Decision a nullity. This does not appear to be true. The original Credit River Decision took place on December 7th, 1968.

Jerome Daly v. Savage State Bank and Supreme Court of Minnesota took place on 11/14/1969, and paragraph [14] reads, in part:

"... we declare all proceedings in this matter in the justice court subsequent to relator's demand for removal of August 15, 1969, a nullity. Minn. St. 531.115 provides for removal as a matter of right from a justice of the peace court to a court presided over by a salaried judge, and it requires the justice of the peace to transmit the file of such action "forthwith."

The above is especially interesting, because, as I understand it, a "right" can always be waived. If neither party exercised their right to remove the original Credit River case to a court presided over by a salaried judge, then that right must have been waived. The Savage State Bank did not object to the justice of the peace venue until they lost the case. and tried to appeal. In every other instance I can think of, anyone who fails to claim or exercise a right has waived it.

Notice, also, that the right to remove the case(s) from the justice of the peace court was not mentioned in connection with the Credit River decision, either, but only in connection with the later cases that Mahoney presided over. Also note that these preceedings declaring those subsequent decisions a nullity did not take place until Mahoney was already dead. Mahoney died on Aug. 22, 1969, and the above quoted case took place on 11/14/1969 - almost three months later.

Again - notice that the cases involving Mahoney's justice of the peace court that were declared a nullity in the above referenced Minn. Supreme Court decision took place subsequent to Aug 15th 1969... almost 10 months after the Credit River Decision of Dec 7th 1968. So how is the Credit River Decision actually a nullity, then?

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by Heidi

So how is the Credit River Decision actually a nullity, then?

It's not. It is just those on Quatloosers would have us believe it is. I have seen nothing that would lead one to that conclusion. If anyone has any proof that it was nullified, please provide it. We would all like to see it.

[Shoonra]

This is info on "Credit River" that I posted on this website on March 13th of this year:

About the so-called Credit River Case, this is virtually a hoax. In 1969 nutty lawyer Jerome Daly scouted up a Justice of the Peace (not a Judge), Martin (not Victor) Mahoney, and got him to sign a purported court decision that pretends to order the county court not to accept Federal Reserve Notes for filing fees.
As a JP, Mahoney had no legal training and no authority to make such a decision, but Mahoney signed a do***ent with lots of legal citations that had undoubtedly been written by Daly, who then printed it in his private tax avoidance newsletter (and later on the internet).

Even if authentic, a JP's decision has no legal weight as a precedent.

It appears that a real court tumbled to this put-up case by Daly and had tried to stop it. In re Daly (1969) 284 Minn. 567 171 N.W.2d 818. When one of Daly's audience tried to use the "decision" in an argument, the court declared that Mahoney's decision was a nullity because far beyond the jurisdiction of a JP. Zurn v. Northwestern National Bank (1969) 284 Minn. 573, 170 N.W.2d 600; and the "decision" hasn't persuaded other courts either. Brobeck v. Commissioner, Tax Ct Memo 1980-239, affirmed 681 F.2d 804; etc. Jerome Daly himself was suspended from the bar, and later disbarred, for this and similar stunts. Mahoney died before they could do anything to him.

[MADDOG]

Shoonra Posted:

About the so-called Credit River Case, this is virtually a hoax.

Personal opinion unless supported by facts. Please offer facts.

In 1969 nutty lawyer Jerome Daly scouted up a Justice of the Peace (not a Judge), Martin (not Victor) Mahoney, and got him to sign a purported court decision that pretends to order the county court not to accept Federal Reserve Notes for filing fees.

The above allegation jumbles the known facts. The Credit River Decision took place on Dec 7th 1968. I've seen no proof from any source that Mahoney was not a qualified Justice of the Peace. I have seen no proof from any source that Jerome Daly got Mahoney to sign any fraudulent or forged court decision regarding Federal Reserve Notes. My research tells me that the First National Bank of Montgomery appealed the original Credit River decision, and on Jan 6th 1969, when Mahoney insisted that his court would not accept FRNs as payment for $2.00 in filing fees, but would accept $2.00 in coin, the bank refused to tender payment in coin. I have to wonder why the bankers dug in their heels at the prospect of just tendering $2.00 in coin and then proceeding with their intended appeal so that the matter could be adjudicated and illuminated for the public. Instead, The First National Bank of Montgomery, the Savage State Bank, and the Supreme Court of Minn set about punishing Mahoney and Daly for broaching this subject at all.

As a JP, Mahoney had no legal training and no authority to make such a decision,

The official record tells me that Mahoney presided, but that the JURY made the decision.

but Mahoney signed a do***ent with lots of legal citations that had undoubtedly been written by Daly,

Have you any proof to offer to support this allegation, Shoonra?

(Daly) who then printed it in his private tax avoidance newsletter (and later on the internet).

This is no different than that quatloser who claims to be a writer posting her blog on the Internet, is it?

Even if authentic, a JP's decision has no legal weight as a precedent.

Isn't it true that no lower court's decision carries any legal weight as a precedent?

It appears that a real court tumbled to this put-up case by Daly and had tried to stop it. In re Daly (1969) 284 Minn. 567 171 N.W.2d 818. When one of Daly's audience tried to use the "decision" in an argument, the court declared that Mahoney's decision was a nullity because far beyond the jurisdiction of a JP. Zurn v. Northwestern National Bank (1969) 284 Minn. 573, 170 N.W.2d 600;

As I examine this case summary, I see where on July 11, 1969, Justice Peterson acting for the Minn Sup Court directed Martin V. Mahoney and Jerome Daly "...to show cause why they should not be permanently restrained from further proceedings in the Justice Court." Daly apparently appeared to argue on his and Justice Mahoney's behalf before that court on Aug 21, 1969 - the day before Mahoney was found dead.

Paragraph [16] begins "The rationale of our determination is as follows:" and the subsequent paragraphs enumerate the Minn Sup Ct's powers with respect to all courts of "inferior jurisdiction". Paragraph [19] states that "the legislature has fixed narrow limits to the jurisdiction which may be exercised by justices of the peace in this state" and "Acts in excess thereof by such justices of the peace are a nullity and subject to control by a writ of prohibition." and paragraph [20] states: "The power to prohibit an improper exercise of jurisdiction embraces the power to issue ex parte an order designed to maintain the status quo pending a hearing upon an application for a writ of prohibition." and paragraph [21] continues: "this court had full authority to issue a preliminary order to show cause why such peremptory write should not issue, and, in order to maintain the status quo until both sides of the controversy could be heard, to issue a restraining order to prevent any further action from being taken, eigher affirmatively or by inaction such as we have here."

Paragraph [31] includes the only language I find limiting the powers of the justice of the peace court in a way that could nullify the Credit River Decision: "the amount in controversy exceeded the $100 jurisdictional limitation of the justice of the peace courts under SS 530.05" but if that were so, why was the Credit River Decision not specifically addressed? In Re Daly seems only to address later and current cases as of September 5th, 1969.

and the "decision" hasn't persuaded other courts either. Brobeck v. Commissioner, Tax Ct Memo 1980-239, affirmed 681 F.2d 804; etc.

Agreed. Not surprising.

Jerome Daly himself was suspended from the bar, and later disbarred, for this and similar stunts. Mahoney died before they could do anything to him.

They were certainly stomped, literally and figuratively.

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?

A great deal has been done for many years to distract attention from that particular aspect of the event. If it's no big deal, why such a concerted effort to bury it (literally and figuratively)?

[skeptic62]

It's not. It is just those on Quatloosers would have us believe it is. I have seen nothing that would lead one to that conclusion. If anyone has any proof that it was nullified, please provide it. We would all like to see it.

The Minn. Supreme Court case nullifying all of the Mahoney decisions has been posted here a number of times. The Credit River case does not have to be mentioned by name to be included. But - even if it wasn't nullified by that decision, why don't you prove why it is at all important to anything else? After all, it would have no precedential authority to any other court anywhere in the country.

The official record tells me that Mahoney presided, but that the JURY made the decision.

Please post that record. There was no official record because it wasn't in a "court of record."