Credit River Decision

[Madeline]

All the thanks in the world to Lawdog for finding it.

http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/askfaq.html#credit

http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/Cr...editRiver.html

[Extramural]

Cody, How are your dresses fitting?

I picture you now in a bufont hairdo, horn rimmed glasses, and curtain pattern dress. (big hips too)

Can you explain how this can be fair when the Justice Mahoney was dead (murdered) when anything was purportedly overturned?

[Extramural]

Madeline/Cody,

Do you have even ONE case where FRN's have been proven to have any other substance than faith/credit?

Just one.

That's all I want.

[David Merrill]

Lawdog is correct, from the perspective of the State of Minnesota, the Credit River Money Decision is a legal nullity. It is a fine example of competent common law.

The Libel of Review can give perspective as it uses the de jure Thirteenth Amendment and the Credit River Money Decision as examples of the superior court venue. The objective is to establish the suitor in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the US to be a man on the land and therefore part of a positive law jural society, even the Preamble Union of We the People if nothing else.

This is done first by restricted appearance in admiralty - Rule E(8) - the man coming forth First Middle name of the family nomen. No social compact for the benefit of a legal or full name.

Follow this carefully. This is the constitution in the Laws of Colorado 1861, and by the time and title of the book, it is obvious that the law as found in that book appertains to the Territory of Colorado some four decades after the Thirteenth Amendment was allegedly never ratified. Do you suppose the non-ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment just never reached us country bumpkins out in Colorado territory?

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_6744_969.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_6744_970.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_6744_971.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_6744_972.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_6744_973.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_6744_974.jpg

This is law for the Colorado Territory - not the State of Colorado. Now both the man and the territory - Man on the Land are established.

Credit River is not a town. Credit River is not a city or county. Credit River to this day is a Township. The jury convened under a Justice of the Peace in positive law jural society - common law. So Madeline, with that in mind, I suggest you read the actual Judgment, Order and Decree before you run off after territorial legal nullities like the State of Minnesota and attorners like Lawdog.

But I think you are sensible enough to know that. You are just posting to get a better explanation from me.

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.

[Extramural]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Lawdog is correct, from the perspective of the State of Minnesota, the Credit River Money Decision is a legal nullity. It is a fine example of competent common law.

The Libel of Review can give perspective as it uses the de jure Thirteenth Amendment and the Credit River Money Decision as examples of the superior court venue. The objective is to establish the suitor in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the US to be a man on the land and therefore part of a positive law jural society, even the Preamble Union of We the People if nothing else.

This is done first by restricted appearance in admiralty - Rule E(8) - the man coming forth First Middle name of the family nomen. No social compact for the benefit of a legal or full name.

Follow this carefully. This is the constitution in the Laws of Colorado 1861, and by the time and title of the book, it is obvious that the law as found in that book appertains to the Territory of Colorado some four decades after the Thirteenth Amendment was allegedly never ratified. Do you suppose the non-ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment just never reached us country bumpkins out in Colorado territory?

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_6744_969.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_6744_970.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_6744_971.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_6744_972.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_6744_973.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_6744_974.jpg

This is law for the Colorado Territory - not the State of Colorado. Now both the man and the territory - Man on the Land are established.

Credit River is not a town. Credit River is not a city or county. Credit River to this day is a Township. The jury convened under a Justice of the Peace in positive law jural society - common law. So Madeline, with that in mind, I suggest you read the actual Judgment, Order and Decree before you run off after territorial legal nullities like the State of Minnesota and attorners like Lawdog.

But I think you are sensible enough to know that. You are just posting to get a better explanation from me.

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.

Right. "legal" has nothing to do with "lawful."

[Lawdog]

OK, folks. Time to get some perspective here. I will endeavor to point out some things for those of you who are not too far gone to understand.

First, why does it matter that Justice of the Peace Mahoney had died when the Minnesota Supreme Court tossed out his decision? When has it ever been a rule that the judge or judges who rendered a decision must still be breathing in order for that decision to be overturned? Think about the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court case that did away with school segregation in 1954. That case overturned a previous Supreme Court decision, Plessy v. Ferguson, which had been decided in the 1890s. Do you really think any of the justices on the Plessy court were still alive in 1954?

Second, 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. Speaking to my own experience in Georgia, we have magistrate courts in every county which correspond to justice of the peace courts in other states. Their jurisdiction is very limited, a person can be a magistrate with just a high school education, and every decision by a magistrate is appealable de novo to a higher court in the same county.

Third, Mahoney's decision was completely beyond the powers of a justice of the peace under Minnesota law. As the Minnesota Supreme Court noted in one of the cases associated with Credit River, In re Daly, 284 Minn. 567, 171 N.W.2d 818 (1969):

In Minnesota, the justice of the peace court is a court of inferior jurisdiction. [1] Since the constitutional amendment of the judicial article in 1956 justice of the peace courts exist in this state only to the extent permitted by the legislature. Minn.Const. art. 6, §§ 1, 8, and Schedule. The legislature has fixed narrow limits to the jurisdiction which may be exercised by justices of the peace in this state. (Minn.St. 530.01, 530.05, 530.06, 531.03, 531.04, 532.37.) Acts in excess thereof by such justices of the peace are a nullity and subject to control by a writ of prohibition. Smith v. Tuman, 262 Minn. 149, 114 N.W.2d 73.

Id., 284 Minn. at 569, 171 N.W.2d at 821

In the matter before us it was evident [284 Minn. 570] from an examination of the summons and complaint in the proceedings sought to be restrained that Justice of the Peace Mahoney was undertaking to act in a matter with respect to which he had no jurisdiction. The representation of an attorney at law authorized to practice before this court that a copy of this summons and complaint attached to the petition seeking the writ of prohibition was a true and correct copy of the process served on his client formed in itself an adequate factual basis for the issuance of the temporary order directed to Justice of the Peace Mahoney and Jerome Daly.

(5) The refusal of the justice of the peace to respect the July 11 order of this court was not justified. The justice of the peace would be bound to obey our intermediary order regardless of whether the actions restrained by our order were in excess of his jurisdiction. In re Lord, Supra. Apart from this principle, it is clear that the proceedings restrained were beyond the limits of the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace in a number or respects, including these:

(a) The summons, being returnable at 7 p.m. rather than between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. as specified by Minn.St. 531.03, was a nullity.

(b) The summons did not contain a statement of the amount claimed by plaintiff as required by § 531.03.

(c) Contrary to the provisions of § 531.04, the summons was personally served upon Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis in the city of Minneapolis, a city having a population in excess of 200,000.

(d) This service was performed outside of the county of issuance, Scott County, in violation of the provision of § 531.04 that such service must satisfy the requirements of Minn.St. 532.29. One of the requirements of Minn.St. 532.29 is a continuance of proceedings for a period not exceeding 20 days, and no such continuance was provided in this case.

(e) The amount in controversy exceeded the $100 jurisdictional limitation of the justice of the peace courts under § 530.05.

(f) The relief sought, a declaratory judgment, was not within the granted powers of a justice of the peace. See, § 530.05. It has been the law ever since the 1861 case of Fowler v. Atkinson, 6 Minn. 350 (503), that a justice of the peace has no jurisdiction over equitable proceedings. See, Smith v. Tuman, Supra.

Id., 284 Minn. at 569-570, 171 N.W.2d 822.

[Extramural]

Third, Dog,

How can an equity or "legal" court deal with Common law matters?

[Shoonra]

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?

It mattered only to the extent that Jerome Daly was disciplined for his part in this nonsense, but Mahoney was beyond the reach of the disciplinary committee.

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

Definitely, a challenge to the validity of federal law is far and away beyond the capacity of a JP. In this particular case, the "decision" was on an issue that wasn't even argued in his court -- it was a trick to impede the filing of the bank's appeal from Mahoney to a higher tribunal. The legal significance of FNRs was not part of the case. So this "decision" was gratuitious as well as ghostwritten.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog
...too far gone to understand.

There is no REASON to consider seriously anything beyond that statement.

That is predicate, thesis statement, subject matter, and message.

All unsubstantiated ad hominem fallacious logical rhetorical artifice.

Everything else is irrelevant window dressing.

Now there are two (see Uncle Bernie's "contribution") third-rate Tory Loyalist private monopoly trade guild BAR Associaton bastard Esquire attorneys operating as third-rate propagandists targeting the site?

As well as a convenient foil to play off of?



This is ground that has been gone over and over, and is just another attempt of the tail to wag the dog and waste the target's time and energy.

[David Merrill]

For Madeline's sake, I will reiterate. For as I implied, state is more a state of mind than a territorial designation. Inventing America; Jefferson's Declaration of Independence by Garry Wills explains it rather eloquently - and in light of the rather lucid interjection by Mrg:

Now there are two (see Uncle Bernie's "contribution") third-rate Tory Loyalist private monopoly trade guild BAR Associaton bastard Esquire attorneys operating as third-rate propagandists targeting the site?

As well as a convenient foil to play off of?

By calculating Lincoln's Gettysburg Address - Fourscore and Seven Years Ago... we find the launch point of that meaningful political comment to be 1776, not 1789 and that there were many Crown Esquires signing for both parties on the Declaration of Independence, rendering it an internal memorandum rather than a contract. A quiet title only to rename the Colonies States.

Ergo, we find as I pointed out above, that the Territory of Colorado was simply adopting the Constitution for the US rather than the Constitution of the US.

This judiciary act of 1789 forming the districts as well as the judiciary under Article III of the Constitution makes it plain:

Originally Posted by Judiciary Act of 1789

"...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, §2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741.

And like I also pointed out, not only did Jerome Daly continue living in his home for a decade or two more, the only reprisals possible were his Masonic-like membership to the International Bar Association - the Crown Templar Attorners; but the Credit River jury was a fine example of the original intent of the 'saving to suitors' clause in action.

http://www.creditrivertownship.com/

Thank you Lawdog for showing the crux of the state court allegedly overturning is by the US Constitution and Judiciary Act of 1789 the nullity here. The state legislature had outlawed competent common law a couple years before Daly convened a jury? You want to talk about nullities, Lawdog - there it is in your post.

Sadly the current clerk of the township has turned over the records to the county seat. He was a bit offended when I pointed out that he was malfeasant as the clerk of the township for that.

In and around 1933, all the states followed suit in the foreclosure by Governors' Convention and adopted the rule of Administrative Act of 1933. The state competency through the county courts was abolished and replaced with a system that would try such things as we see there in the State of Minnesota corporation - to make it look like the state legislature had power to overturn competent common law in a township assize. See the attachment as it occurred in Colorado, at least for the extraterritorial state - State of Colorado anyway.

You are welcome Madeline. Thank you for your PMs however I really wish you would allow others to read them too. Please post openly. I am happy you requested some clarification by opening this thread.



Regards,

David Merrill.