Legal Tender: Is it Legal, Lawful, Constituional? Part 1.

On a cold December morning in 1968, in the State of Minnesota, one month short of 40-years ago, a jury of 12 handed down the “Credit River Decision”. This decision, rendered in the case of First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly, with Justice Martin V. Mahoney, presiding, declared that creating money out of thin air is unconstitutional and against the laws of the United States of America. In other words, Jerome Daly, with the help of Justice Mahoney and 12 jurors took on the Federal Reserve... the moneychangers...our entire monetary system, and won. Six months later, in June of 1969, Justice Mahoney was dead, his body pumped full of poison, in what appeared to be a boating accident, and Jerome Daly, an attorney, disbarred.

Jerome Daly, the defendant in the case, dared to challenge the foreclosure of his home. Daly argued that the mortgage contract required both parties, he and the bank (the plaintiff), to put up a legitimate form of property for the exchange. In legal terms, this is called consideration.

Daly went on to explain that the credit (money) did not come from the bank because it was created out of thin air as soon as the loan agreement was signed. Then, the bank's president, Mr. Morgan took the stand. According to the judge's personal notes, Mr. Morgan admitted, "in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank, the bank did create the money and credits upon its books by bookkeeping entry. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it." Mr Morgan then added, "no US Law or Statute in existence gave him the right to do this."

For this contract (mortgage) to be considered legal, a lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the loan. The Jury found that there was no lawful consideration and decided against the bank because the bank had not lent Jerome Daly actual money, and because the bank advanced nothing of value in this exchange, it was not entitled to the property that had been handed over as collateral for the loan.

"Only God can create something of value out of nothing." - Jerome Daly

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. -- Justice Mahoney

This decision, revealing the process behind our debt-based currency, could have put the banking cartel - without mentioning any names, the epitome of the "money trust" - and all of those who profit so handsomely from our current system, in the "poor" house. The powers that be would never allow that to happen...look what happened to poor Justice Mahoney and Mr. Daly. Something had to be done to make sure this decision never saw the light of day.

The Supreme Court of Minnesota overturned the Credit River Decision, obscuring their reasons for doing so behind the complexity of our legal system. In order to simplify things just a bit, let's say their main reason for overturning the decision boiled down to the fact that Credit River is not a town, not a city nor a county; it is a township. What does this have to do with the price of money? Not being an attorney, I can't begin to figure it out, but this "fact" enabled the higher court to render this potentially elite cartel-shattering decision a legal nullity, stripping the case of any power to set precedent, meaning it only has "theoretical value" at best. Or at least that's what "they" are counting on.

If the higher court had not rescinded the Credit River Decision, every time we borrow money from a bank, obtain a mortgage, charge our credit card, etc. we could claim the "money" lent to us is not only counterfeit, it is an illegitimate form of consideration; hence voids the contract because the bank never had the money in the first place.

However, consider the fact that Jerome Daly continued to live in his home for many years following the Order and Decree. He was never evicted. Now, if the higher court overturned the decision, why did Daly continue to live in his home for approximately 22 more years? Could it be because the Supreme Court of Minnesota - or any US Court for that matter - does not have the authority to overturn the decision of a jury? Therefore, could the Credit River Decision be valid? Therefore is it possible...? Nah...we won't even go there, except to say that only 3% of the US money supply exists in physical currency. Where is the other 97%? Well, let's just say if every American citizen decided to cash out all their accounts, our monetary system would be exposed for what it is.

Next: Part 2: On second thought, let's go there, and explore how legal, "legal" tender really is.

Some informative links:

Minnesota State Law Library: Credit River case files

In the Matter of Jerome Daly: Credit River case files

The Bankers Manifesto of 1892