Bank Act deemed Unconstitutional:
Credit River decision 1968
Certified copy of the decision: PART1 -
PART2 - PART3
Re Jerome Daly No. 42174 Supreme Court of Minnesota
THE DALY EAGLE
3368 GOVERNOR DR. #186
SAN DIEGO, CA 92122
FEBRUARY 7, 1969
IN THIS ISSUE: "A LANDMARK DECISION"
A MINNESOTA TRIAL COURT'S DECISION HOLDING THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID; HOLDING THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID; DECLARING A MORTGAGE ACQUIRED BY THE FIRST
NATIONAL BANK OF MONTGOMERY, MINNESOTA IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF ITS
BUSINESS, ALONG WITH THE FORECLOSURE AND THE SHERIFF'S SALE TO BE VOID.
THIS DECISION, WHICH IS LEGALLY SOUND, HAS THE EFFECT OF DECLARING ALL
PRIVATE MORTGAGES ON REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND ALL U.S. AND STATE
BONDS HELD BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE, NATIONAL AND STATE BANKS TO BE NULL
AND VOID. THISAMOUNTS TO AN EMANICPATION OF THIS NATION FROM PERSONAL,
NATIONAL AND STATE DEBT PURPORTEDLY OWED TO THIS BANKING SYSTEM.
EVERY AMERICAN OWES IT TO HIMSELF, HIS COUNTRY, AND TO THE PEOPLE OF
THE WORLD FOR THAT MATTER TO STUDY THIS DECISION VERY CAREFULLY AND TO
UNDERSTAND IT, FOR UPON IT HANGS THE QUESTION OF FREEDOM OR SLAVERY.
A PATRIOTIC PUBLICATION, EDITED AND ISSUED BY JEROME DALY, 28 EAST
MINNESOTA STREET, SAVAGE, MINNESOTA.
Patrick Henry's advice on the cold war….
They tell us, Sir, that we are weak - unable to cope with so formidable
an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the
next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed?…
Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire
the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and
hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have
bound us hand and foot?…
Sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who
presides over the destinies of Nations… This battle, Sir, is not to the
strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave …
There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are
Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace! - but there is no peace. The war
is actually begun! … Why stand we here idle? What is it that
Gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace
so sweet, as to be purchased as the price of chains and slavery?
Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take;
but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
HOUSE OF BURGESSES, VIRGINIA
3368 Governor Dr., #186
San Diego, CA 92122
THE "CREDIT RIVER DECISION" HANDED DOWN BY A JURY OF 12 ON A COLD DAY
IN DECEMBER, IN THE CREDIT RIVER TOWNSHIP HALL, WAS AN EXPERIENCE THAT
I'LL NEVER FORGET.
CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT HAD PHONED ME A WEEK
BEFORE THE TRIAL AND ASKED ME IF I WOULD BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE
PEACE, ASSISTING JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, MARTIN V. MAHONEY SINCE HE HAD
NEVER HANDLED A JURY TRIAL BEFORE. I ACCEPTED, AND IT TOOK ME TWO HOURS
TO GET MY CAR RUNNING IN THE 22 BELOW ZERO WEATHER.
I GOT TO THE COURT ROOM ABOUT 30 MINUTES BEFORE TRIAL, AND HELPED GET
THE WOOD STOVE GOING, SINCE THE TRIAL WAS BEING HELD IN AN UNHEATED
STORE ROOM OF A GENERAL STORE. THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME I MET
JUSTICE MAHONEY AND I WAS IMPRESSED WITH HIS NO NONSENSE MANNER OF
HANDLING MATTERS BEFORE HIM. MY JOB WAS TO HELP PICK THE JURY, AND TO
KEEP JEROME DALY, AND THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE BANK OF MONTGOMERY
FROM ENGAGING IN A FIST FIGHT. THE COURT ROOM WAS HIGHLY CHARGED,
AND THE JURY WAS ALL BUSINESS.
THE BANKER TESTIFIED ABOUT THE MORTGAGE LOAN GIVEN TO JEROME DALY, BUT
THEN DALY CROSS EXAIMINED THE BANKER ABOUT THE CREATING OF MONEY "OUT
OF THIN AIR", AND THE BANKER ADMITTED THAT THIS WAS STANDARD BANKING
PRACTICE. WHEN JUSTICE MAHONEY HEARD THE BANKER TESTIFY THAT HE COULD
"CREATE MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR", MAHONEY SAID, "IT SOUNDS LIKE FRAUD TO
ME." I LOOKED AT THE FACES OF THE JURORS AND THEY ALL WERE AGREEING
WITH MAHONEY, BY SHAKING THEIR HEADS AND BY THE LOOKS ON THEIR FACES.
I MUST ADMIT THAT UP UNTIL THAT POINT, I REALLY DIDN'T BELIEVE JEROME'S
THEORY, AND THOUGHT HE WAS MAKING THIS UP. AFTER I HEARD THE
TESTIMONY OF THE BANKER, MY MOUTH HAD DROPPED OPEN IN SHOCK, AND I WAS
IN COMPLETE DISBELIEF. THERE WAS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT THE
JURY WOULD FIND FOR DALY.
JEROME DALY HAD TAKEN ON THE BANKS, THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANKING SYSTEM,
AND THE MONEY LENDERS, AND HAD WON.
IT'S NOW TWENTY EIGHT YEARS, SINCE THIS "LANDMARK DECISION", AND
JUSTICE MAHONEY IS QUOTED MORE OFTEN THAN ANY SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
EVER WAS. THE MONEY BOYS THAT RUN THE "PRIVATE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK",
SOON GOT BACK AT MAHONEY BY POISONING HIM IN JUNE OF 1969, LESS THAN 6
BOTH JEROME DALY, AND MARTIN V. MAHONEY, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, ARE
TRULY THE "GREATEST MEN THAT I'VE EVER HAD THE PLEASURE TO MEET. " THE
"CREDIT RIVER DECISION", WAS AND STILL IS THE MOST IMPORTANT LEGAL
DECISION EVER DECIDED BY A JURY.
IN JUSTICE COURT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
TOWNSHIP OF CREDIT RIVER
JUSTICE MARTIN V. MAHONEY
First National Bank of Montgomery,
JUDGMENT AND DECREE
The above entitled action came on before the Court and a Jury of 12 on
December 7, 1968 at 10:00 am. Plaintiff appeared by its President
Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by its Counsel R. Mellby.
Defendant appeared on his own behalf.
A Jury of Talesmen were called, impaneled and sworn to try the issues
in the Case. Lawrence V. Morgan was the only witness called for
Plaintiff and Defendant testified as the only witness in his own behalf.
Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the
possession of Lot 19 Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minn.
Plaintiff claimed title to the Real Property in question by foreclosure
of a Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8, 1964 which Plaintiff claimed
was in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were started.
Defendant appeared and answered that the Plaintiff created the money
and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry as the consideration
for the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964 and alleged failure of the
consideration for the Mortgage Deed and alleged that the Sheriff's sale
passed no title to plaintiff.
The issues tried to the Jury were whether there was a lawful
consideration and whether Defendant had waived his rights to complain
about the consideration having paid on the Note for almost 3 years.
Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a
consideration was created upon their books, that this was standard
banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that
he knew of no United States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the
authority to do this. Plaintiff further claimed that Defendant by
using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the Note and
Mortgage waived any right to complain about the Consideration and that
the Defendant was estopped from doing so.
At 12:15 on December 7, 1968 the Jury returned a unanimous verdict for
Now therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in pursuant to the
Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the
Constitution of United States and the Constitution and the laws of the
State of Minnesota not inconsistent therewith ;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1.That the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot
19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota according to the Plat
thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office.
2.That because of failure of a lawful consideration the Note and
Mortgage dated May 8, 1964 are null and void.
3.That the Sheriff's sale of the above described premises held on June
26, 1967 is null and void, of no effect.
4.That the Plaintiff has no right title or interest in said premises or
lien thereon as is above described.
5.That any provision in the Minnesota Constitution and any Minnesota
Statute binding the jurisdiction of this Court is repugnant to the
Constitution of the united States and to the Bill of Rights of the
Minnesota Constitution and is null and void and that this Court has
jurisdiction to render complete Justice in this Cause.
6.That the Defendant is awarded costs in the sum of $75.00 and
excecution is hereby issued therefore.
7.A 10 day stay is granted.
8. The following memorandum and any supplementary memorandum made and
filed by this Court in support of this Judgment is hereby made a part
hereof by reference.
BY THE COURT
Dated December 9,
MARTIN V. MAHONEY
Justice of the Peace
Credit River Township
Scott County, Minnesota
The issues in this case were simple. There was no material
dispute of the facts for the Jury to resolve.
Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the federal
Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes,
because of their interlocking activity and practices, and both being
Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States,
are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the
entire $14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping
entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note
dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and
credit first came existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted
that no United States Law Statute existed which gave him the right to
do this. A lawful consideration must exist and tendered to
support the Note. See Ansheuser-Busch Brewing Company v. Emma Mason, 44
Minn. 318, 46 N.W. 558. The Jury found that there was no
consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out
Even if Defendant could be charged with waiver or estoppel as a
matter of Lawthis is no defense to the Plaintiff. The Law leaves
wrongdoers where it finds them. See sections 50, 51 and 52 of Am Jur
2nd "Actions" on page 584 - "no action will lie to recover on a claim
based upon, or in any manner depending upon, a fraudulent, illegal, or
immoral transaction or contract to which Plaintiff was a party.
Plaintiff's act of creating credit is not authorized by the
Constitution and Laws of the United States, is unconstitutional and
void, and is not a lawful consideration in the eyes of the Law to
support any thing or upon which any lawful right can be built.
Nothing in the Constitution of the United States limits the
jurisdiction of this Court, which is one of original Jurisdiction with
right of trial by Jury guaranteed. This is a Common Law action.
Minnesota cannot limit or impair the power of this Court to render
Complete Justice between the parties. Any provisions in the
Constitution and laws of Minnesota which attempt to do so is repugnant
to the Constitution of the United States and void. No question as to
the Jurisdiction of this Court was raised by either party at the trial.
Both parties were given complete liberty to submit any and all facts to
the Jury, at least in so far as they saw fit.
No complaint was made by Plaintiff that Plaintiff did not
receive a fair trial. From the admissions made by Mr. Morgan the
path of duty was direct and clear for the Jury. Their Verdict could not
reasonably been otherwise. Justice was rendered completely and without
denial, promptly and without delay, freely and without purchase,
conformable to the laws in this Court of December 7, 1968.
BY THE COURT
December 9, 1968
MARTIN V. MAHONEY
Justice of the Peace
Credit River Township
Scott County, Minnesota.
Note: It has never been doubted that a Note given on a
Consideration which is prohibited by law is void. It has been
determined, independent of Acts of Congress, that sailing under the
license of an enemy is illegal. The emission of Bills of Credit upon
the books of these private Corporations for the purpose of private gain
is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States and is
unlawful. See Craig v. Mo. 4 Peters Reports 912. This Court can tread
only that path which is marked out by
FORWARD: The above Judgment was entered by the Court on Decemebr 9,
1968. The issue there was simple - Nothing is the law gave the Banks
the right to create money on their books. The Bank filed a Notice
of Appeal within 10 days. The Appeals statutes must be strictly
followed, otherwise the District Court does not acquire Jurisdiction
upon Appeal. To effect the Appeal the Bank had to deposit $2.00
with the Clerk within 10 days for payment to the Justice of the Peace
when he made his return to the District Court. The Bank deposited two
$1.00 Federal Reserve Notes. The Justice refused the Notes and
refused to allow the Appeal upon the grounds that the Notes were
unlawful and void for any purpose. The Decision is addressed to the
legality of these Notes and the Federal Reserve System. The Cases
of Edwards v. Kearnzey and Craig vs Missouriset out in the decision
should be studied very carefully as they bear on the inviolability of
Contracts. This is the Crux of the whole issue. Jerome Daly.