Credit River Decision

[aksis]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

... justice of the peace courts are typically the lowest rank of court in any state. They are courts of limited jurisdiction, usually are not even considered courts of record, and many states allow people to be justices of the peace who have no legal training whatsoever. Mahoney didn't. He was a farmer and carpenter.

... that was elected to serve as a Justice.

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Mahoney's decision was completely beyond the powers of a justice of the peace under Minnesota law...

... which is why Justice Mahoney summoned a jury, and thus, Jerome Daily's right to this was preserved.

A jury tried that suit at law, in which the value in controversy exceeded twenty dollars. It was obviously not a "justice of the peace court". It was a trial by jury... the "one supreme Court".

Originally Posted by VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

What is the rule of the common law regarding the retrying of the facts established in this suit?

Originally Posted by V

"... nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy..."

Lawdog and Shoonra,

You fail to provide evidence that Jerome Daily consented to the suit being re-tried by the Supreme Court of Minnesota, sitting in an administrative capacity, without a jury.

You operate on this blaringly obvious false presumption:

Originally Posted by Lawdog

First, why does it matter that Justice of the Peace Mahoney had died when the Minnesota Supreme Court tossed out his decision?

Again, it is not (and never was), "his decision".

Again, it was the jury's.

I can now see what has lead the "DiMwhitted Tory Loyalist private monopoly trade guild BAR Association bastard Esquire attorneys operating as third-rate propagandists" astray in their sophistry, they disregarded this elementary point (and many other points, the error being that: a Court of one of the the United States (sitting in an administrative capacity or otherwise) has power to retry facts tried by a common law jury without a jury.

Obviously not even the US Supreme Court can do this effectively.

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Like I pointed out, the State of Minnesota never had any authority to rescind Credit River Township's right to assemble in juries.

David Merrill,

And that is definitely the crux of the issue. It is sooo simple: the Supreme Court of Minnesota (or any US Court) has no authority to overturn the decision of that jury (or any jury)... and it's "decision" is of no validity whatever, from its inception.

This explains in a way that even a high school dropout can comprehend, and also provides evidence of why, Jerome Daly continued to love in his home for many years following the Order and Decree, and was never evicted.

Something else you're consistently right about Mr. David Merrill, is how useful Shoonra and some of the other esquires are.


Sincerely,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

[Shoonra]

(1) The only significance to Mahoney's death is that the Minnesota Supreme Court mentions it to explain why Daly is being brought up on charges but not Mahoney, because Mahoney is beyond the reach of any earthly court.

(2) Your citation seems to confuse the concept of deouble jeopardy in criminal prosecutions with the review of a civil cases.

(3) Jerome Daly, nor any other litigant in a civil case, had no veto power to prevent the other side from seeking review in a higher court.

(4) A JP court, in Minnesota and elsewhere, is extremely limited in its authority and its authority would never extend to declaring invalid Acts of the US Congress (particularly Acts of Congress that other courts, with real judges, had already upheld).

[aksis]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

(2) Your citation seems to confuse the concept of deouble jeopardy in criminal prosecutions with the review of a civil cases.

I find no such limitation to "criminal prosecutions" mentioned in that portion of the Article (like it is in the subsequent portion) regarding this provision, and losing ones home, as shelter is an obvious aspect of the "right to life", fits the bill.

(3) Jerome Daly, nor any other litigant in a civil case, had no veto power to prevent the other side from seeking review in a higher court.

That has not happened yet, they sought review in something less than an assize... and it had no authority to retry the case.

(4) A JP court, in Minnesota and elsewhere, is extremely limited in its authority and its authority would never extend to declaring invalid Acts of the US Congress (particularly Acts of Congress that other courts, with real judges, had already upheld).

This statement has nothing to do with the jury trial that we are discussing. Are you imagining things again Shoonra? Like Acts of Congress and Court decisions can amend the Constitution? Or that legal fiction is greater then human beings? That unconscionable contracts are valid?

Sincerely,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

[David Merrill]

When will the trustees ceace trying to cheat the heirs?

Succinctly why I often say what Shoonra is in effect saying - because he even by my signature behaves like a returning Knight Templar laden with Jerusalem's gold, running to the Laws of Oleron and the Black Book of the Admiralty to justify that he gets to keep it all until the rightful owners come claim it. And well, if they are not going to get there to lay claim in thirty days...

That is what Shoonra has expressly said concerning the gold seizure of 1933 - That since nobody had any gold to seize during the Great Depression, it was okay for the US government to steal it - because the few who did have gold were "hoarding" it - just like FDR said.

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...March_1933.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ollections.jpg

That is the whole gist of capital integration. (attached cover sheet)



Regards,

David Merrill.

[aksis]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Succinctly why I often say what Shoonra is in effect saying - because he even by my signature behaves like a returning Knight Templar laden with Jerusalem's gold, running to the Laws of Oleron and the Black Book of the Admiralty to justify that he gets to keep it all until the rightful owners come claim it. And well, if they are not going to get there to lay claim in thirty days...

That is what Shoonra has expressly said concerning the gold seizure of 1933 - That since nobody had any gold to seize during the Great Depression, it was okay for the US government to steal it - because the few who did have gold were "hoarding" it - just like FDR said.

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...March_1933.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ollections.jpg

That is the whole gist of capital integration. (attached cover sheet)



Regards,

David Merrill.

And the gold is only a very small part of the inheritance.


Much Love,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

[marie]

Hello all,

I did call and inquire of Audrey Brown at 952.496.8209 about the Credit River Decision.

She was very kind and told me that the old record number is 19144.

The cost for a certified copy of the transcript is four hundred seventy dollars.

The cost of an uncertified copy is two hundred thirty-five dollars.

Just current info (as of April 25, 2008) if anyone is interested.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by marie

Hello all,

I did call and inquire of Audrey Brown at 952.496.8209 about the Credit River Decision.

She was very kind and told me that the old record number is 19144.

The cost for a certified copy of the transcript is four hundred seventy dollars.

The cost of an uncertified copy is two hundred thirty-five dollars.

Just current info (as of April 25, 2008) if anyone is interested.

Ouch!

Last time I spoke to her each document could be purchased for the $10 certification fee. - Regardless of the # of pages.

I believe that the entire file is what she quoted to you.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by marie

Hello all,

I did call and inquire of Audrey Brown at 952.496.8209 about the Credit River Decision.

She was very kind and told me that the old record number is 19144.

The cost for a certified copy of the transcript is four hundred seventy dollars.

The cost of an uncertified copy is two hundred thirty-five dollars.

Just current info (as of April 25, 2008) if anyone is interested.

You can get a certified copy of a 40 year old decision that was overturned by a higher court, sure.

You can also have a turd bronzed, if you want.

The question in either case would be...why the hell would you want to?

[ezrhythm]

What the blind can't see they can learn to distinguish.
What they can't distinguish is barren by attitude.

[Shoonra]

Lawdog asked a perfectly reasonable question.

You know that the so-called Credit River Decision was overturned (repeatedly and emphatically) by its state's highest court, and rejected by courts in other jurisdictions. Why are you throwing good money after bad??