Copied from: http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au/html/landmark.html
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 forged!…
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
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
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 MONTHS LATER.
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
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
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 the
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
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
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 of nothing.
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
BY THE COURT
December 9, 1968MARTIN 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.