The fraud of the banking system was exposed in a simple and easy to understand way in the “Credit River Case”. If you haven’t read what I wrote about that yet, then you might want to go read it now. This little case, from this small jurisdiction was gaining WORLD wide attention. (see affidavit of Jerome Daly filed 6-26-1969) If the ideas and concepts about fiat banking, contractual consideration and the fraud that is fractional reserve banking laid out in that little case became known to the people the game would be up. The arguments the judge made in his opinions are simple and clear. They are irrefutable. And THAT was the problem. The arguments cannot be REFUTED because they are true.
Since the actual arguments could not be addressed, the REAL system issued a Code RED to be sure this case was erased and could not be used by future “lawyers”. None of their usual tricks and threats WORKED on this judge. You can see the “orders to show cause“. He stood his ground. After being ordered by the “District Court” to “appear with the papers” for appeal, the judge again REFUSED to do so. 1969-01-23 Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law and Judgment. He believed in “the constitution”. He believed in principle. And he was not going to be bullied or threatened into doing something he didn’t believe in. You can make your own mind up about the coincidental “fishing accident” the judge had just a couple days after a key hearing.
So let’s just look at what actually happened after the jury came back with its verdict finding that the bank’s “loan” was not valid consideration, because they had “created the money out of thin air” by way of the Federal Reserve fractional banking practices.
After the decision, an appeal was filed. The law required that a deposit of $2 dollars (lawful money of the United States) be made to perfect the appeal. The Bank deposited two federal reserve NOTES, which people call “dollars”.
The court then found that the clear and unambiguous language of the U.S. Constitution prevented him from accepting FRN’s. Here is the Constitutional language he cited:
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
The court then ruled that federal reserve notes (FRN’s) are paper backed by nothing, that the appeal deposit was the State accepting payment for a debt, that FRN’s do not meet the constitutional requirements for what a State can accept as a debt, and, that therefore the requirements for an appeal had not been met. And he is correct. The language is Unambiguous and clear I just showed it to you. No “court opinion” regardless of what court, can render that clear language to mean anything but what it DOES MEAN.
The judge then specifically gave the Bank a chance to come to a hearing and present any legal argument and or facts to show how the “federal reserve notes” met the constitutional requirement that limited a state from accepting anything but gold and silver coin tendered in payment. The Bank, not surprisingly, did not appear. They did not request an extension. They did not respond. And they never will in such a case.
The fundamental ISSUES set out in this case by this judge will NEVER be addressed, because they CAN’T be. So, instead they use the back channels of the REAL SYSTEM. They went and tried to have the justice ORDERED to send the paperwork in for the appeal. Does this make sense to you? Why would any normal party who seeks possession of a $14,000.00 note, choose to file expensive complicated additional documents with another court, instead of simply going down and giving 2 silver dollars or 8 quarters to the trial court for deposit and then being free to go argue whether what the judge was saying was correct? Why wouldn’t they do that? How does their conduct make any sense in the world where you and I live? How does it make any sense if they have a legitimate argument that they simply want an opportunity to make to an independent tribunal?
It doesn’t. That refusal to either deposit or address this issue is “the dog who didn’t bark”. The whole issue of appeal and contempt and orders to “show cause” and all of the procedural wrangling are utterly and totally unnecessary if the bank simply runs a courier down and deposits 8 quarters with the court clerk. Then they would be free to argue about the merits all they wanted in the District Court.
They didn’t do that because they didn’t WANT to argue the MERITS to the opponents they faced in this case, because THEY CAN’T WIN ON THE MERITS AND THEY DON’T WANT THAT ARGUMENT ON THE RECORD!
The men behind the scenes were working on several tracks at once. Not only were they attempting to avoid having to actually address the issues, but during all of this time the system went after the judge and lawyer in yet separate actions for contempt, and to disbar Daly, the lawyer. When these issues came to a head Daly, appeared before the Minnesota Supreme Court itself to let it know whether he and the judge intended to comply or not.
This is THE MOMENT OF TRUTH. If he does a mea culpa at the hearing then he probably is free to go on his way. If not, well, I hope he has some back up. lol What does he do? He goes up there and DEFIES the very heart of the beast, the “Supremes”, of Minnesota.
Let’s be clear. There is no published opinion about the Credit River Case itself by the District Court or the Supremes ON THE MERITS. Get that? There is only what the judge said, ON THE MERITS. The later courts only dealt with phoney baloney procedural issues. That is how they hid the whole thing! What follows is an excerpt from the NSA’s Wiki cite that directs people into what the ptb’s want people to “know”. Note that they cite from the Supreme Court opinion Disbarring Daly, discussing the show cause order, not the issues in the case! Pay close attention to what it says and DOESN’T say.
Related litigation did produce published decisions from the Minnesota Supreme Court. In Re Jerome Daly, 284 Minn.567, 171 N.W.2d 818 (1969), is excerpted below:
… In response to our order of August 12, 1969, directing the justice of the peace and Mr. Daly to show cause why they should not be held in constructive contempt of the Supreme Court of Minnesota for this conduct, Mr. Daly appeared personally in his own behalf before this court on August 21. He advised the court that he had been authorized to represent the justice of the peace in the proceedings. After noting that he was making a special appearance, Mr. Daly, an attorney at law admitted to practice in this state, acknowledged that both he and the justice of the peace intentionally violated the order of Justice Peterson because in their opinion neither this court nor Justice Peterson had jurisdiction to issue it.
Although the death of the justice of the peace on August 22, 1969, has rendered the proceedings as against him moot, it is our judgment that the conduct of Jerome Daly was contumacious. It is the order of this court that he be temporarily suspended from the practice of law in the courts of this state effective October 1, 1969.
In other words, the gauntlet was thrown down on August 21st. The judge was not going away. The case had world wide attention focused on it. The next day, the judge had his unfortunate and untimely fishing accident. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence. To suggest otherwise would be conspiratorial kookery and I would never go there.
But it is worth noting that, the FIRST substantive “defense” to what the judge had done was filed 6 days after the judge was no longer alive to dispute it. 1969-08-28 Counter-affidavit of Theo R Mellby Oh, and the “affidavit” “proving” service on the judge for the procedure was executed one week AFTER he died as well. 1969-08-29 Supplemental Return to Writ of Attachment. Oh, and after he had that accident, the judge who replaced the unfortunately dead guy, did exactly what the District Court was not able to get the other judge to do, and delivered the paperwork. 1969-10-01 Order. Oh and the winning party defendant got disbarred 2 weeks after the judge died. And then he was held in contempt by the judge who took the other guy’s place.1969-09-05 slip opinion In re Jerome Daly And the Bank ended up winning. And EVERYTHING that went on in the Credit River Case was declared a NULLITY, and can therefore never be referred to officially by lawyers in any case. Zurn v. Northwestern National Bank, 284 Minn. 573, 170 N.W.2d 600 (1969).
Wow, funny how these things just “happen”. Such a shame the judge had that accident so he couldn’t speak up for himself. And so he could never discuss this case or his findings or write a book or tell his story. Oh well THE SYSTEM worked. It’s all about law and order you know. We have to all follow the law. Justice is blind. So, get in line and do your part. In fact, I’m having so much fun and enjoying so much freedom. I think I’m going to go vote again just to say Thanks Freedom.
I want to say one more thing about this truly absurdly obvious case that was so very dangerous and therefore got buried. What the courts and the “historians” in this case would have everyone believe is that “the court” had “no jurisdiction” to do what it did to the Bank. That is the entire upshot of how the case “was resolved” from a technical legal point of view. And that was essential because that allowed it to be “nullified” which made sure it had NO VALUE and could not be used for any purposes. In fact here is what Wiki says about it how it all turned out.
The immediate effect of the decision was that Daly did not have to repay the mortgage or relinquish the property. However, the bank appealed the next day, and the decision was ultimately nullified on the grounds that a Justice of the Peace did not have the power to make such a ruling. (i.e. technically, that he did not have jurisdiction)
This nullfied case and its reasoning have nevertheless been cited by groups opposing the Federal Reserve System and, in particular, the practice of fractional-reserve banking. Such groups argue the case demonstrates that the Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional. Because the Credit River decision was nullified, the case has no value as precedent. A U.S. District Court decision in Utah in 2008 mentioned half a dozen such citations, noting that similar arguments have “repeatedly been dismissed by the courts as baseless” and that “courts around the country have repeatedly dismissed efforts to void loans based on similar assertions.”
Well I for one am shocked by this. But I have just one…. more…. question.
If the court had no “jurisdiction” to rule against the Bank, as they say, then how would the court have had the “jurisdiction” to rule in FAVOR of the Bank?
Do you see the problem? If there was no jurisdiction then the court did not have the authority to give the BANK the relief it sought! And YET, the judge who replaced the now dead guy, did give the BANK the very relief it SOUGHT. And that my friend, is yet another dog who didn’t bark in this case.
The BANK chose the forum. The Bank sought relief from the court. The Bank thought it could get relief from the court. It’s the only reason it would file in the court. The Bank got a fair trial. The BANK’S own witness’ statements were taken as TRUE at trial. But when the BANK lost, the Appellate process “determined” there “was no jurisdiction”, thus the case was NULLIFIED. And nullification was the essential outcome. Because that was what makes the case “useless”in the future. And gives it the appearance of “kookery”. Nobody will touch the case as a lawyer or a judge, well, because … well, I think you know why.
But there was no “jurisdictional” problem when the same court with a new “not dead judge” then turned around on the same claim and ruled in the BANK’S favor!! lol how could that be? Do you see the contradiction? There is authority to rule in favor of the bank but not against?? That is NOT how jurisdiction works. Lol. None of this makes any sense, UNLESS you understand what was really going on in the REAL system. Then it all makes sense.
Okay, I’m done. I hope you learned something about how they can hide the realities behind a veil of complex seeming “procedure” and then just bury the whole thing. If this is not enough to show you what the system is, then what else could I ever show you?
Take care my brainwashed Brethren. Live in the light and tell someone the truth about the law.
P.S. Can you help a brother out? It’s ALL about the “LIKES”. Don’t hate the playa, hate the game.