The little case that threatened the entire Banking system.

Just FYI, this is what an actual coincidence looks like.

Just FYI, this is what an actual coincidence looks like.

I want to tell you about a simple little case from an obscure little court, where the findings and verdict posed such a danger to the money power, that they tried to prevent the judge from even entering the verdict. He refused. One week later the judge had an “unfortunate” fishing accident and died.

As for the lawyer/individual who brought the case and won it to the jury? Well he was coincidentally disbarred. Oh and the case findings? they were “nullified” on procedural grounds because well, “that’s the law”. And now of course, any lawyer who attempts to cite the case, well, they too face sanctions and possible disbarment by the “licensing” system the government runs that “allows” them to operate in the “legal system” the government runs. Remember, it is all just “following the law”.  What, do you not “support law and order”? You probably hate kittens too then.

So what in the world could the case have stood for that made the system react so violently? Simple. It exposed the truth about the banking system in a simple and straightforward way that allowed anyone to understand the fraud that it is. 

And, just as importantly, it showed how the people could defend themselves. 

Chomsky quoteBefore I tell you about “The Credit River Case” I want to make sure you understand the legal issue.  In order to have a contract even the NSA admits you need the following.
At common law, the elements of a contract are offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations, and consideration.

This just means the parties have to discuss terms, come to agreement on the terms and then we both have to be OBLIGATED to exchange something of value. The something of value is called “consideration” in the law. Here, from the same NSA link, is what they say about that.

Consideration is something of value given by a promissor to a promisee in exchange for something of value given by a promisee to a promissor. Typically, the thing of value is a payment, although it may be an act, or forbearance to act, when one is privileged to do so, such as an adult refraining from smoking. This thing of value or forbearance from some legal right is considered to be a legal detriment. In the exchange of legal detriments, a bargain is created.

It's so beautiful isn't it?  Here is another legally binding contract where it is difficult to determine whether the "consideration" was valid.

It’s so beautiful isn’t it? Here is an excellent example of a legally binding contract where it can be difficult to determine whether the “consideration” was valid, and what the exact terms were.

So not only do we have to agree to the exchange, but you have to each exchange something of value that is considered a “legal detriment”. It must be real. If you pay me with counterfeit money, well, the contract “fails for lack of consideration”, in legal terminology. You “gave me” something that “was not real and not what we discussed” so I didn’t get the “benefit of the bargain”  That is really all contract law is, a formal discussion of agreements between people.

So now with that legal understanding, let’s look at the  “Credit River Case”.  I encourage you to go look at all of the paperwork yourself if you are interested.

The case is straightforward.  The Bank/Plaintiff was trying to foreclose, and the property owner/Defendant was defending the action claiming that there was no valid consideration given by the bank under the contract because it simply created the “money” that it “gave” by making a bookkeeping entry. Here is how the court described it.

Lawrence V. Morgan was the only witness called for Plaintiff (Bank)  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 …by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed….

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 (the Bank’s only witness) 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.

"Owned", hmmm, exactly how did they buy that again?

“Owned”, hmmm, exactly what did they use to buy it with again?  I’m a bit unclear on that.

So a straightforward simple case with very straightforward allegations.  The case was tried to a jury.  They found against the bank.  Basically finding that the bank WAS NOT ENTITLED TO POSSESSION because it hadn’t given ANY CONSIDERATION when it made the mortgage!!  

Here is the short memorandum opinion that the court entered into the record with the order after the trial.  The order the powers that be did everything they could to prevent the judge from entering.

MEMORANDUM
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 into 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 be 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….

Plaintiff’s (Bank’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….

Both parties were given complete liberty to submit any and all facts to the Jury, at least in so far as they saw fitNo 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.

Now that gives me an idea.

Banker’s are hardly man’s best friend.

And that is the case and the opinion that quite literally set off a sh**storm.  Why? Because it very simply explained the fraud that is Banking.  And when given the undisputed facts, the jury had quite RIGHTLY found that there is no actual consideration given by the Bank because the bank just creates the money out of thin air. It doesn’t actually LEND MONEY IT HAS so the contract is not valid!

Do you see how dangerous this case is?  Under no circumstances can these ideas become known or discussed openly as anything even POSSIBLY legitimate.  It Had to be “erased” and found to be “kookery”.

Think of the implications otherwise.   A jury of regular people had been told the truth about what banks clearly do EVERYDAY and they saw that it is nothing but fraud. Nobody has agreed to allow banks to create money out of thin air.  The mortgages and other loans the bank’s make do not have any actual consideration!

Most people in the country assume that when someone borrows money from a bank that the bank is actually lending you some of the money that it has on deposit. But that is just not true under the fractional reserve system we have.  And if people understood this undeniable fact, as Henry Ford said, there would be a revolution overnight.  And so those in charge make sure nobody does find out.

The process by which money is created is so simple the mind is repelled.”—John Kenneth Galbraith

The law quite literally gives a protected class of private individuals, “central bankers”, (and their facilitators) the right to create money out of thin air, and then to “lend out” the made up money and collect interest on it.  You have to work. They do not.

An honest thief, Josiah Stamp

An honest thief, Josiah Stamp

“The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take away from them the power to create money and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money.” — Josiah Stamp Former Director of the Bank of England

The poor soon to be dead judge in this case clearly was a man of principle.  He believed the big lie he had been told about our country and the founding documents and our supposed “freedom”.  He believed the system was what he had been taught.  He was sadly mistaken and apparently paid for that mistake with his life in the form of a fishing accident.

The modern banker plying his craft.

The modern banker plying his craft.

There are two basic types of control systems. Overt systems,  meaning openly with force or threats, and covert systems, enforced, by way of disguise or in secret. In an OVERT system of control, the people CAN SEE the force used to keep them down, like in North Korea.  Therefore they KNOW that the legal system is rigged against them.  In a covert system the people are tricked into imagining they are in control and that therefore the legal system is “fair”. That is the key difference.

Our system is a covert system.  Therefore the ENTIRE system relies upon the people believing that they are in charge of the system, that the system works for them and that it is fair.

One of the most difficult concepts for people to grasp and accept is that the legal system is not there to dispense justice. It is there to control you under the GUISE that it is there to dispense justice.

The only obstacle that any covert system faces, such as ours, is making sure the people don’t find out  the TRUTH about the system.  Like the truth that this case exposes. And that is why so much time and money is spent brainwashing people very early on in government schools under government curriculum about justice and liberty and pledges of allegiance, etc. etc. And that is why the media tells us nonstop about how just and wonderful a country we have our whole lives.

So now that you see the reality of the system, let’s recap what happened in this case.  The BANK filed the case in the court. The BANK looked to the Court to take the property.  The bank did not complain it didn’t get a fair trial.  The bank did not complain it was not allowed to put on its evidence. The evidence used by the jury was the BANK’S own witness’ admissions.  The facts of this case were not in dispute! 

And what was the result of all this after the jury found against the bank?  The bank ended up winning “later” on procedural grounds after the judge ended up dead, and the lawyer ended up disbarred.   Do you see the real system yet?

I don't whether to laugh or cry when I see people who are so deluded. They actually think that they have to WAIT for 9 guys and gals to GIVE them their RIGHTS.

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when I see people who are so deluded. They actually think that they have to WAIT for 9 guys and gals to GIVE them their RIGHTS.

What more does it take for you to see that the Constitution prevents NOTHING!  It is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem.  Continuously talking about “getting back to it” and “enforcing it” and “its principles and limitations” just drains off energy that could be used to create REAL change.

If the constitution or the system actually did anything that people imagine, then outcomes like THIS could never happen. And if they did, the people would know about them and those responsible would have been brought to justice.  But none of THAT ACTUALLY happened because that is not what the system ACTUALLY does.

The system is there to control you, but its success depends entirely on you never finding this fact out.

I can’t take anymore freedom today.  Plus there are the limitations of space. There is a lot more to the case that happened afterwards. If you want to find out about it, I wrote about that here.  Because I am done for today. 

I hope you learned something. Take care my brainwashed Brethren.  Live in the light and tell someone the truth about the law.

Legalmand IS the law

Legalman IS the law

P.S. Can you help a brother out? It’s ALL about the “LIKES”.  Don’t hate the playa, hate the game. If you like my site then take a second and hit the LIKE button!  Then SHARE it.  You can do it. I have faith in you. It is much appreciated.

 

 

53 thoughts on “The little case that threatened the entire Banking system.

  1. Kram

    Credit river… the creature from Jekel Island, Modern money Mechanics, feudal lords, plantation owners, gotta hand it to em, if you don’t, they will take it … hell, give me unlimited funds, zero accountability, and no conscience, and insert gran dios imagination and viola world dominance and control is a viable life’s work and goal for generations to come…. what a fun game to keep boredom at bay!! Thanks Legalman!

    Reply
  2. msoliman

    Citing: The case is straightforward. The Bank/Plaintiff was trying to foreclose, and the property owner/ Defendant was defending the action claiming that there was no valid consideration given by the bank under the contract because it simply created the “money” that it “gave” by making a bookkeeping entry.

    Respectfully , the argument fails as the amount paid to the prior party of interest “demand issuer” would be an amount outstanding need to close. Thus consideration exchanged as a note meaning the demand converted to a receivable and obligation of the lender. There a question arises as to the borrower HUD I showing said line item was paid to existing lien holder that amount satisfied . But the consideration is valid as evidenced on the HUD I .

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Thanks for the comment msoliman. I’ll just say a couple things. One, the argument is not mine it was the Defedant’s. Two, the argument did not fail. It succeeded. The jury found in favor on undisputed facts. If the Bank thought it had some kind of “demand issuer HUD 1” argument they were free to make it. They did not. My guess is they didn’t make it because it is just as much of a load of sh** as the rest of the banking system. You can’t collect interest on nothing. That is called usury. You can’t create an obligation just because “Joe Biden” or any other crook up there in Washington dreams up some “HUD 1” nonsense and “writes it into law”. You might read my article on what real law is. Can “hud 1” horsesh** fly in a fully corrupted system like we have where judges control and direct the case to assure outcomes? of course. But that is why we are supposed to have jury trials. As my article on jury nullification describes. They can make “laws” that say anything. It doesn’t make them binding on the people. Once again THAT is the very point of a jury trial right.

      When you exchange nothing of actual value, which is what the banking system does, it is up to the people of the jury to decide if it was consideration. Criminal enterprises are not consideration as a matter of public policy. I can’t say that the consideration I gave was that I would forego kicking your ass. The absurdity of some concoction like an issuer demand etc. is no different. If I blackmail you is that an enforceable contract? How about if I extort you? Why not? Because the “consideration” I gave, not burning your business down, or breaking your legs, is not valid and people don’t accept it. The only difference between that type of “consideration” and the made up nonsense foisted on people through the banking system is that in one case the people can see the problem, and in the other they don’t. UNLESS they are given the actual facts as they were in this case. And then the people of the jury found against the party running the scam. Nothing more.

      The people will get whatever they will take. And not a drop less. — L

      Reply
  3. AnOldLadyInCalifornia

    In 1995 I paid HUD in like kind of money they loaned to me to refinance my home.
    I did this because I had no money to hire an attorney, at the time I thought could help me.
    I had no other options. I checked out a book from the library and did exactly what it said I didnt have anything to lose.
    A few months later, a reconveyance for my home was filed in our county hall of records.
    They created the money and I did the same on my word processor, numbered the fractional reserve check 101 and made it out for the full balance of the loan on the property.
    It worked, so quit selling people short as if you are the know all of anything there is to know.
    God is still on the throne and People are the smartest thing in this world, the rich are just lying, thieving criminals that needs to be behind bars! Anyone that sits and justifies their fraud and crime is part of them.
    You dont have to do what they do, if you condone it, it makes you one of them and just as guilty.

    Reply
    1. Aliya

      I think what California old lady did was make up a promissory note of her own. I think she was very lucky it worked and they didn’t pursue it. possibly because it was for too low an amount to be bothered with. I don’t know much about this, but that’s what is sounds like to me..

      Reply
      1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

        Thanks Aliya that was my best guess as well. But it is so far fetched that I didn’t want to comment based upon it. I certainly didn’t want anyone to think it might actually be a way to approach it. If that worked it was beyond luck. Glad you’re here. — L

        Reply
      2. Debra

        I didnt make a promissory note, I created a fractional reserve check on my word processor, numbered it 101, for 80,000 dollars payable HUD, and redeemable by any bank , in like kind of money.
        Some call it luck but I called it nothin to lose and an answer to prayer!
        Debra

        Reply
  4. FightinTheForeclosureMachine

    As I continue to work on my appellant’s brief , I would love to raise this argument. Perhaps by quoting and referencing ‘Modern Money Mechanics’, published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in 1992, I might be able to prove the truth. This booklet explains in detail that in exchange for my signed Note, the ‘Lender’ made 2 book entries; 1 in the asset column and 1 in the liability column. They then created an account in my name and ‘credited’ my account with the same amount as the Note. A check was written against my account, and given to me as my ‘loan’, which was then used to pay off the seller, etc. Yepper, I was loaned my own money…! Due to our fractional reserve system, the lender is required to ‘reserve’ 10% of the amount of the Note. Let’s say the note is for $100,000. The Lender keeps $10,000 as the reserve, and has $90,000 available to loan out again. This continues on until the amount to loan out reaches $0. Doing the math, on my $100,000 Note, the Lender has made $900,000 out of thin air, or actually from my signed note for $100,000. AND I get to pay the lender back my own money with interest no less. What a sham. We need to get the word out! Everyone needs to read Modern Money Mechanics!

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Yes “Fightin” that is quite the interesting little booklet. There is an even more amazing one I looked at years ago that was published in the the 30’s I believe. I can’t remember now what book I saw it referenced in the first time, but it is available to review. It pretty much comes clean on the scam. That’s why the next version was changed. You can still find original versions of it for sale on Ebay. Yes, the entire thing is a complete fraud.

      I wish you the best. I have come to the sad conclusion that people just don’t seem to be able to grasp the true nature of the problem. Because as bad as the banking system is, pretty much every other system they have running is just as crooked and empty. But no matter how many ways I tell them, they want to know how we can “fix it”, meaning how we can “fix our country”. And they just can’t seem to grasp that as soon as people allow something, ANYTHING, to have the “power” that they “give” to a country, that the game is over. The concept of a large entity that can order you around will ALWAYS be or become corrupted. Period. The only answer is to dismantle. But people simply refuse to hear that. They continue to imagine that it can be “reformed” with the right person or some new amendment etc. It cannot.

      The only reason they even cling to the idea is that they continue to imagine that there is some magical time to “get back to”. But no matter how many times I show them clear proof that the “founding” was just as corrupt as Obamacare, they still believe it is something else. And that very desire to “have a country” etc. is what those in power exploit. And clearly always have. The banking system is certainly rotten to the core. But tell people that and they will want to “get rid of the fed” and replace it with some other government over seen system of money. lol. The problem is GOVERNMENT. it is a necessary EVIL. It must be kept to the absolute minimum. And no government of any sort can ever exist which claims authority over 330 million people. That will always fail. Its jurisdiction can never be more than a small group, probably less than 50 to 100k people at the absolute most. Otherwise it will never be responsive to the people.

      But try and tell people that and they say, that isn’t possible in “today’s age”. lol, So I give up. If people want a “solution” and then I tell them what the solution will require, and they immediately reject it and demand that we simply rework the current systems, well, then there you go. There can be no solution. They just want a “better master”. I don’t want a master. But people do, so they get one. lol

      Take care. Fightin. And watch your back. lol — L

      Reply
      1. ol'Pappy

        “There is an even more amazing one I looked at years ago that was published in the the 30’s I believe. I can’t remember now what book I saw it referenced in the first time, but it is available to review. It pretty much comes clean on the scam.”

        Do you mean the Fed published a prior version by the same name? Sounds like something I need to investigate.

        Reply
        1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

          Yes Ol’Pappy, it published a booklet on its own practices. I believe I read about it in this book. http://www.alibris.com/The-Fraud-of-Money-Banking-Scene-Three-The-Fraud-of-the-Fraud-Jose-M-Paulino/book/24611011 But I am not sure. He wrote several other books, for some reason it sticks in my mind that is where I first came across it. Regardless, the booklet simply laid it out. Thus it got “pulled” edited and now is a watered down version for the drones to enjoy. A mutual doctor friend of ours visited the local Fed Res branch bank here on a “field trip” with his son’s class. He was nice enough to pic me up a Fed pencil. I keep it on my desk. It says, The Federal Reserve, the Economy in Action. lol the economy. good one. — L

          Reply
  5. Barbara Todish

    Just about everybody is angry! I would care that just about everybody is angry if there WAS any HUMAN anybody TO care about! Unfortunately, Just about everybody has their identity, (namely their race, their gender, their ethnicity, their religion, their class, their occupation, thier sexuality, their politics, their age, their physicality, etc., as their identity,) instead of, or in addition to , their HUMANITY, so I only care about me and MY HUMANITY, and. of course, my dark, darker, darkest HUMOR! In other words, I HATE EVERYONE< if only there WAS everyone and/or anyone TO HATE! lmmfao

    Reply
  6. Anna von Reitz

    You are exactly right in all of this, Legal Man— please see our book “You Know Something Is Wrong When….An American Affidavit of Probable Cause” It references the Credit River Decision and explains the history behind how we got into this mess—-also brings forward an actual Affidavit of Probable Cause which has been forwarded to appropriate international courts of record.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      I’m glad you agree Anna. I’m also glad you’re passionate. It is quite a mess. Not sure anyone will get anywhere in the international courts, I suspect they are the ultimate control system. But I will remain hopeful. Glad you’re here. — L

      Reply
  7. H

    The gullible public has been duped and manipulated for a very long time. We recognize propaganda in other countries but we don’t see it in our own public school system. Everything is a fake. It’s all a scam.

    Do you really know who Teddy Roosevelt was? Read about the fairy tale and how it it paved the way for the endless wars of the US. Let us know what you think. See: http://tomatobubble.com/span_am_war.html

    “Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” – Thomas Jefferson

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Quite right H. Sorry for the extended delay, I was out of town. I have always enjoyed the tomatobubble. But boy does it touch on some 3rd rails! lol. I steer clear of a couple of subjects, even in my fascinating stuff section just because they are such sacred cows for the controllers, and I just don’t care to bring down the wrath. My little site is certainly no threat, but my specialty is law. So I stay within it. Glad you’re here though. — L

      Reply
  8. Seth Sklarey

    The lack of consideration is a good argument why forced placed insurance should be thrown out. This is why JPMorganChase and other banks settled for million of dollars rather than go to court on that issue.

    Reply
    1. Jinggo

      The poverty line it would buy you less than 10k year no idea where you have silly thgnis to pay for like rent utility bills food etc etc etc etc so your answer is not in the poverty line it would buy you have silly thgnis.The poverty line it would be around less than 10k year no idea where you have silly thgnis to pay for like rent utility bills food etc so reckon your income from 300k would buy you have silly thgnis to pay for like.The poverty line it would buy you are living but around 192 week in the uk is well down so your income from 300k.The uk usa understand your interest rate is just about 100 about the poverty line it would be around 192 week in the uk is well down so your interest rate is not long.

      Reply
  9. sydcom

    but didn’t the bank have to give an actual $14,000 to the seller when he bought the house? So even if it was created on their books someone had to get real money for the house

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well sydcom, I apologize for the delay in responding. I was out of town. But no there is no 14K. It is all just entries on a book. The seller would simply receive a check representing yet more book entries. That is the problem. It is made up. It is not what people think of when they think of money and loans. And that is why the jury did what it did. Because it is so clearly a fraud. — L

      Reply
  10. Movingforward

    So, based on this as legal precedence, and acknowledging the risks a lawyer would take on in the situation, is there grounds for a class action filing for every single loan or contract with this missing consideration? Being that it would be the biggest (and possibly last) court case in history, could there be safety in numbers?

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Sorry for the delay Movingforward I was on holiday. Class actions are mostly a scam. I have considered writing on them. Of course theoretically you’re right, but in practice of course it would never work. But yes the entire system is a complete fraud. Total. Such is our “reality”. It is just a concoction presented to the masses for the benefit of those who run it. Nothing more. — L

      Reply
  11. joe

    Thanks for another great article. It will help more people will see the light. You are an excellent writer, stating facts simply, clearly and with interest.

    Many people believe that the system is broken and needs fixed. So they conclude that we should get back to the good old days and back to the Constitution.

    Your articles repeatedly show that the system is working as intended. It works well for those that designed it. They don’t have to work since they can create wealth out of thin air. They can “buy” real wealth (land, buildings, factories and etc.) with pieces of paper or electronic credits created out of nothing.

    So how can we average folks use the system to our advantage?
    Now that we know that the system is there to control us, how can we be free of that control, – or at least use the system?

    How can we get our property off the tax roles so we can keep what we paid for and not be taxed out of our homes? How can we keep our income and not pay excessive and multiple taxes on it, just like the big corporations don’t pay tax. How can we have any privacy? How can we use corporations and other vehicles common to the system, to our advantage? In any other way that you care to think of, how can we protect ourselves? How can we also use advantages the system?

    Reply
    1. Crocodile

      People should learn…… from the rich 🙂

      You have heard, no doubt, that “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer”. But for the rich who do actually get richer, and the poor who remain poor… there’s one basic and simple reason : the rich keep doing the things that make them rich, while the poor keep doing the things that keep them poor.

      I don’t think people will learn. Maybe just a few.

      Reply
      1. Qarl Johnson

        What a solipsistic pile of BS! Rich are rich because they stole their wealth or were related to a thief and were given the accumulated capital to keep theirving from the poor. Capitalism is systemic theft.

        Reply
        1. Crocodile

          AAAhhhh….. a Communist between us !

          Steven Jobs did steal from you ?
          Warren Buffet did steal from you ?
          Bill Gates did steal from you ?

          Go through the list of Forbes and name one who has stolen from you, little Communist !

          Reply
        2. Luke Cage

          Not capitalism but crony capitalism. But yes, many of the vastly wealthy stole what they have and/or bought influence w/ politicians to make them more money or ensure thee had outright or near monopolies.

          Reply
    2. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well Joe you obviously have a keen eye for quality. lol. I’m glad my material speaks to you and I’m glad you find it clear. You have a lot of questions as well! lol. I am working on a way to try and answer those types of questions for people. It is a very big topic obviously. First and foremost, recognizing the reality is a huge protection in and of itself. But I understand the desire for more. I am working on it. — L

      Reply
  12. whiteyward

    If making the law confusing and licensed does not help the capitalist there is always Religion. Today the separation of church and state provides the doorway for the courts to jump into every wedding cake. The wedding does not have to be religious in any way.
    Money creation is not protected by theft or loss and could exist on a napkin.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      You are correct whiteyward, religion is/was one of the most useful systems they had for a long time. Still is in many ways. Such a shame really since people are naturally spiritual and realize there is something more. To take advantage of that is truly despicable. Most people involved, of course, are well meaning people who believe themselves. I touch on this on my front page briefly. Anyway, glad you’re here. — L

      Reply
  13. Paul

    Legalman , try just once to hire a “bar” attorney to file a UCC1 for you or to get them to defend you In a court case where you prove the court has non-jurisdiction over you, or you need counsil to free yourself from your straw man and access your bond account.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Paul let me just say this. The legal profession is certainly full of the same basic people that populate the masses, no better no worse. True some may have more specialized knowledge, but many are no different than the masses. They are brainwashed and they are driven solely by the material world. The legal system is formalized coercion and so it needs to be very careful. But of course, it is not. It tramples. But it is not so much the fault of the lawyers anymore than the banking system is the fault of the bank branch president. I know that doesn’t provide much satisfaction to solving the problem, but perhaps it will ease the anger at the individuals. I understand where you’re coming from. Glad you’re here, — L

      Reply
  14. Editor JOe

    In Canada, 12 judges, all linked to one case involving fresh water exports, have died suddenly.
    Some very suddenly. All shortly after their role in the cover up was exposed.
    There is no doubt many were murdered.
    Some lawyers were murdered too.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well now Editor JOe, surely if there was anything suspicious going on “we would all know”. Because “you could never keep it secret”. At least that’s what I was taught. Sounds like a series of unfortunate accidents and coincidences to me, not knowing the facts and all. And really, do we even need to bother with the facts? I know I don’t. As long as the proper authorities have dug in and done their good work for the people, then I am satisfied. Glad you’re here. — L

      Reply
    2. Americanegro

      YOU stated that consideration can be an act or forbearance to act. In this case, the consideration IS the very act of creating the bookkeeping entry. Someone asked Mr. Morgan about ”U.S. law permitting” so it’s surprising that you didn’t mention someone asking about ”U.S. law forbidding”. For example, there is no law permitting me to smoke cigarettes. But I CAN enter into a contract where the consideration is my smoking of a cigarette.

      The judge got it wrong.

      Reply
      1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

        Thanks for the comment AmericanIdonotseecolor. Of course someone can enter into a contract for you to smoke a cig. Or for most anything else. Hence the old pepper corn legalese. But you can’t enter into a contract to Lend someone money and then claim you performed your part by smoking a cig. Just as you can’t enter into a contract to smoke a cig and then claim you performed by offering to pay them 100 bucks. That principle is called the benefit of the bargain. I am entitled to receive the consideration i bargained for in return for my consideration. I’m sorry that I don’t have time or space to explain every legal principle in a single article. But now knowing this you can see that in this case The contract was for the lending of money. Not the act of making an entry onto their books. I’m sorry but you’re analysis is wrong. And on top of that I believe I said it had to be a legal detriment. Further it wasn’t the judges finding. It was the jury’s. And they were correct. — L

        Reply
        1. MartinP

          Was the contract actually for the lending of money or for the purchasing power that the contract inferred?

          Reply
          1. Tony butler

            Our promissory notes to repay loans are legal tender, they have the stated cash value, which the holder the banks cash in on the stock market. The borrower however does not receive that cash, nor the banks, but new digitally created money, to disguise the reality, they only arrange credit facilities secured by the borrower’s PN. Only an estimated 3% of loans is in cash, the rest is credit.
            They charge the borrowers the amount of the credit plus interest, then pocket the proceeds from the sale of the borrower’s PN, they get double the value in cash for making an entry in a ledger.

          2. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

            Well MartinP, I would again go back and say that having closed on a house, that is not what my documents said. And I assume it is not what their documents said. If they had said that, then the Bank’s witness would have raised that and made it clear that the bank’s position was that and not that it had created the money out of thin air. The simple reality is that the bank purports to lend money. That is what they do. They don’t purport to facilitate purchasing power. Because if they did that then again, the jig would be up. The truth would be out. — L

  15. Arnold Gregory

    Thanks for a good read. The banking system is just another name for feudalism. It is feudal system where peasants are more docile because the believe their poverty is a result of their own shortcomings. Under feudalism a leader (King, Pharaoh Emperor etc) gives and takes land and wealth where it suits him because it is his devine right. Now bankers have the devine right to create and bestow imaginary wealth where it suits them.

    People are funny. They don’t believe in the invisible Santa Clause, but they do believe in the invisible Jesus.
    They don’t believe in the divinity of kings, but they do believe in the devine right of bankers. Heretics can’t be tolerated.

    Reply
  16. DachsieLady

    Thank you for this most helpful enlightening article.

    “The system is there to control you, but its success depends entirely on you never finding this fact out.”

    Let’s say we have found this fact out. Would like to read anything you have written about what indivduals can do to change, or at least not participate in, the system. I have moved about 75 percent to cash but have not completely extracted myself from my one major credit card and from a credit union account.

    (Ellen Briown’s solution for Bank of North Dakota type banks are still fractional reserve banks, so I do not see a solution there.)

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Glad you enjoyed it DachsieLady. Regretfully only a very small group can EVER actually see it. Even when they are shown it directly. And that is yet one more difficult lesson that those who can see, must come to grips with. glad you’re here. — L

      Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Not sure I understand your link. It leads to someone with a last name of Haering. That is not the judge’s. Here is the link to the actual opinion. http://mn.gov/lawlib/CreditRiver/1969-01-23findingsoffactconclusionsoflawandjudgment.pdf And here again, from wiki on the judges PAGE. Mahoney died soon after the court case, as reported on page 4 of Vol. III, No.5 of The Libertarian Forum in the article “Jerome Daly Once More” published June, 1971, and accessible at http://mises.org/journals/lf/1971/1971_06.pdf And here is wiki cite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Mahoney So not sure what you are talking about. But best of luck to you. –L

      Reply
  17. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

    Glad you enjoyed it sir. You are clearly a well informed man to have already known about it. I am glad, however, that I could shed some light on the details that are so critical. It’s just a simple tale of law and order, nothing more.

    Reply
  18. ol'Pappy

    Excellent post, Legalman. I’ve read about this case before but never was it explained so well and never had I heard the judge was accidented and the attorney disbarred. Quite telling indeed.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *