04 The Jerome Daly Case USA

The Jerome Daly Case
USA
Dec 1968
He beat the Bank.
The Judge and Jerome mysteriously disappeared a few weeks later.

Jerome_Daly_Case_against_Banks

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN JUSTICE COURT

COUNTY OF SCOTT TOWNSHIP OF CREDIT RIVER

MARTIN W. MAHONEY, JUSTICE

First National Bank of Montgomery,

Plaintiff,

WS JUDGMENT AND DECREE

Jerome Daly, Defendiant.

The above entitled action came on before the Court and a Jury

of l2 on December 7, 1968 at lo: 00 A.M. Plaintiff appeared by its

President Lawrence W. Morgan and was represented by its Counsel

Theodore R. Mellby. Defendant appeared on his own behalf.

A Jury of Talesmen were called, impanneled and sworn to try the issues in this 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

YYLLLL LLLLLL SLLLLLLLL LLLLLSSLS SHHLLLLHHLHtHt SSLLLSL LLtHtttL tLLtLLtLLL eS LLtE SLLLLLLLA eLLLLquSq AqS M S SAMSSAA AAAA qqL Sq SAS LAAAAAAASS

his own behalf.

Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession of Lot l9, 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 Plaintif 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 bookeeping’ entry as the consideration for the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964 and alleged failure of 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 anrright to complain about the consideration and that Defendant was estopped from doing SC

At 12:15ိဝံn December 7, 1968 the Jury returned a unaminous

verdict for the Defendant.

Now therefore, by virtue of the authority ve sted in me pursulant to the Declaration Of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of l787, the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota not inconsistent therewith:

T IS HEREBY ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

  1. That Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot l9, 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.

  1. That the Sheriff’s sale of the above described prennises Δ. held on June 26, 1967 is null and void of no effect.
  2. That Plaintiff has no right, title or interest in said

premises or lien thereon, as is above described.

  1. That any provision in the Minnesota Constitution and any

Minnesota Statute limiting the Jurisdiction of this Court is repugnant

3. That the Sheriff’s sale of the above described premises

held on June 26, 1967 is null and void of no effect.

  1. That Plaintiff has no right title or interest in said

premises or lien thereon, as is above described.

  1. That any provision in the Minnesota Constitution and, any Minnesota Statute limiting 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 nulli and void and that this

Court has Jurisdiction to render complete Justice in this Cause.

  1. That Defendant is awarded coats in the sum of $75 00 and

execution is hereby issued therefore.

  1. A lo day stay is granted. 8. The following memorandum and any supplemental memorandum made and filed by this Court in support of this Judgment is hereby

made a part hereof by reference. శా

Dated December 9, 1968 /ഗ്ഗ

. RTFIN V VMAHONEY . . JUSTICE OF THE PEACE CREDIT RIVER OWNSHIP SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA

MEMORANDUM

The issues in this case were simple. There was no material dispute on 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 there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Instutions 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 Sl4,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookeeping 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 existance when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Busch Brewing Co. v. Emma Mason, 4.4 Minn … u 3l8 , 46 N. W. 558 . The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can created something Cof

value out of nothing.

lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can created something of value out of nothing.

Even if Defendant could be charged with waiver or estoppel as a matter of Law this is no defense to the Plaintiff. The Law leaves

wrongdoers where it finds them. See sections 50, 5l. and 52 of Am Jur 2d “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 rights C8. Il be budit.

Nothing in the Constitution of the United States imits the

Jurisdiction of this Court, which is one of original Jurisdiction wylaith 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 solaáfw repugnant to the

constitution of the United States and adée 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 and law to the Jury, at least in so far as they saw fit.

No complaint was made by Plaintiff that Plaintiff did not

recieve a fair trial. From the admissions made by Mr. Morgan the path of duty was made direct and clear for the Jury. Their Verdict could not reasonably have been otherwise. Justice was rendered 를 completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, freely ańd without purchase, conformable to the laws in this Court_g.December

ibs تجستتيحه**

‘ *.ሶ ‘ኳ

. .هٔ نه .

:

7, 1968.

f

žíŽ; December 9,968 ਜਨ Ά سيا Ο: ΕΠΟ ΕΕ . .

. / ਹਿੰi PEACE / م . . ; ; , / CREDET ဖွံ့ဖြုံးဇွဲဲဗျိုဗြုံး% ́

SCOTT COUNTY MINNESOTA

Note: It has never been doubted that a Note given on a consideration

THE COURF : ήή

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 emmission of Bills of Credit upon the books of these

private Corporations, for the purposes 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 duty. M. W. M. . . . . . .

. . . r … ” . . . . .

if

  1. i. i.

coUNTY OF sarch T ToronsHrp or FArtja craq K

f

First Nat i Ura i r ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘.’ 3ri to the rv, Minness ta , s

PAinti鲁了

na 4 e as . с о м о t. А т ч :

der ose fra ty ,

Fferrð ti

f

營 彎 @ 時 醫 聲 @ 。螺,售 楊 帶 8 醫 曾 最 齡 緯 * * 將 醫 * 魯 魯 像 聲 疊 * 姆 層 ,攀 臀

of Tot 19 , fra i rv i II w. gnar-hi ,

accord i n t i 1 : g r er an rgrdo ro la t t he r r n * yo : fi a end or record in the c e r i re i

LL SSLLLSS CALLLASSS ttL SqLt S Lttt LtLLLS S S S S Aq S SSttHSJ tLSL 0LL LLtYS LHtLLt SJSLSLSq Lq S LHtLLSq

. LLLGSSS HL EECi iiiiS S SSSLSLL 0KLHLtttLL tS SSALAL SSSLSLLLtt SS SStt SS rAS SLLrS SLS LGtEEEH ttt MqSq SS S S

Catört”; ae ? here i traf ar frent iones.

ז ז

That on ‘ay 8, 1964, defenr}a it raade and de 11 veredit : plaint if?

— پ

s S LLeLLLJGLGtLtttS L S YtLt LLL SHLLlL uL LS CeS YLiMLLJt t HLLL CCCt 0KYLL M YS ML LLLl iMLLES H0LLzS

Վ. –

LLLL JHHLSYYLLLLLLL ELLYY tLt SttttLLLL CCLLLSLLLttHtttLLLLLLLLSSSD SSYSSS L0ccScLkLL LLLL LLLLLYLSS ttLL tAA s

نہ“”

LLL tLL SL LLSSLLSSLL LLLL tttLLLLLLLL SzS SSSLY SYS S S SSDLL 0 LLL SS S0S SScS0S Yqt S

or to are was recorded in the office of the R is a ter of heads for sv r

Court y a s dcc u Gant * l, 373 i .

.

the reafter , dsfalu lt ha vil na bern tarde in the :תyaent •o f t ክፍe principai anó interest or raid note and por toaae. r la i n t i f f riu i v fore : safed ga i di mortgace by adverti genent under a pover therà i n, n nc du lvo as se; t

same to be sold by the Sheriff of sail Count v at nuh lir auction on une o,

1967, in confornity with the St A tutè in such case Ardennr provi da d; that

at sa id SA le p ! a !ntiff was the pur chaser of said prem! ses anco said osher off

duly made and delivered his official cert i figat e of ea i ri sa te As provide r

by Minnesota statutes sac. 12: that on ful v. 7, 1967, said certifican was . . .

LLLJLLLLL LL LS LLLLL LLLLLYS LsLL GLS EL CqLL LYYEL L LLLLLLLLsLL LLLLLS S S SLLSL LLLS sLtEL SYS

document a 14393 and lid 394.

፤ V .

LSL L S S SYCLL LLLL LtS LLLLLLLLYSSSSS LcLYYL Ltt0 LLLL ttttYt StlLLLSYLtLLLL LL YYS tttLLLLLL S no receiption has been snce the refroii and the time for redemption ۹ ہ;strبی –

froRa ha K expri redo.

“7. Th息慎 by ra aron the rry of aart of the Statut in such case ands and pro vided plaint 1 fr in the ornet itri fee and ent it led tro the in Liedt a te

possession of said rrę algea.

`/ ፫ .

LLEY tLLLLtttLLttE LL LLLLLtLLLLLLLttt LHlLL YYY tL L LEtu LYYLs LLGCLH Htttlt t SS WHRR arch 2, plaint if f’ de aands adgsgrt for the restitut on of

Raid presi sei and e osta and di abur assents.

MoGUIRR & MRI.Lrv •

/g/Y – Theodoron i R… — Mae llby – . . .

Theodore R. Melby Attorney for Plafont iff Montgoalkery, Minnes ct a 56069 Ta l r 3 4 7 32 T7

3ATE OF NNESOA

county of scort

First Nat on 1 PAnk of M rynt anne ry ,

صت و ل =

Jeroepe 1 vally,

甲1照 n*ff鲁

Dige f g na rat

T jST C firT

Trys T P C F Orr; T trar MA port N. V. MA-R^NRY , .yt*STE CE

P_a_o – Le v

偏 兽 号 碍 臀 臀 母 曾 曾 器 母 镑 经 爱 臀 哆 # * 4 母 @ 曾 雷 瞬 督 懒 # 8 母 # 领 俄 也 日 * 歌 *

Den i SA each arro Svørv A i et at i rin

LtELL YLLLLLL SSLLtttJY S SLLLLSS L S SSDtt JSttuutttiS SSSYYS qqSJtHtuLLL SSS L S

LCeHtt SLLSt tS S LtLLL tLY SttStSS AL YYY YtuLLSS S SLlTtS SYSHHt ttYtS SSS eSAeAHuLtLuLSSt

HLLLL LLLLtttS S StSS tStS LMCL ttt LLL tLLttAtttHt YzYtLLLLLLL LYS SStLeeS LtS LLLL SSqSLSSL tB uLL

di arburse rrents.

Mirrt R. R. M. Law

ΒΥ Theodor i * . ::: 1, by This rines – ar ar : ‘ :á · · · · · · At trir right frt p r + i f f EEL t LLtHLLtttL LLEHS SSAASStHHL LLLL S S S S aLEEEt z Ta 1 : ( 6 ” ? ) 6 4 – 7 tari *

محي “

*

STATE OMNNESOTA N JUSTICE COURT ) :

CopTY OF SCOTT TONS OF CRFDIT FIVE

MARTIN V, MAHMEY, J. ISTICE

First National Bank of Montgoangry Paintiff,

AMNED)

WS ANSWER ANn CnuxTFPCAtul

Jernene fra 1 y The fendant,

Defendant, Jerone faly, for his Answer and Countere air here in states

and al leges :

Defendant denes Fenerally each And every matter and thing in Painti ff’s

excent as is here inn ster al leged,

  1. alleges that resondant is now and has been at all times here in material

the ciner in fee of the orenses dos crihod in the Corplant and now is in

possession thereof,

rt,

A 11 ano As teh At nin nr ahnit Marv R. 1964 tttt tttLLLLLLLttEE YLtttttttLLL LLLLLL AAt tEE EL ELttELtt tEHEHEL

Alleges th gat the fondant is now and haç been at al times herin materi aj the ciner in ree of the remos es dos crihed in the Complaint and now is in

possession thereof.

fr .

Alleges that on or about May 8, 1964 Defendant made and delivered a nronisory note in the sua of $14.000,00 a 1ong with a mortgage te i se eure n nyrernt of the alleged note however, nefendant a1 1ege፪ that said Note and Mnrtage

are void because said Note and Mortgape are not sunnorted by any lawful consideration

mor det e fendant receve any 1 w fi cens i derrą tir for said Not rand Mort page,

1W, Alleges specifically that the Plaint 1ff, through its agents, created, un lawful ly by bookeen ing entry upon the 1e ger books of said Bank, the sur of $14,000,0s) in Roney and credit by which it at triented to give and grant as

a lawful consideration for said Note of $14,000. Of That said activity by

said Bank is unlawful unconstitutional and Weid,

W

That the Federal Reserve Brrking Act and the National Ranking Act, in so far as they are attempted tegis 1 at enn by the thatted States authoritine è larg Reserve And Nati ona 1 Bank s ns Banking Corporations, is unconstitutional and yod and not necessary and nroper for carrying into execution the powers Wested in

the thnited States few by the people. That on the contrary the said corn orations

are set un, ma intained and neraitted to exist as artifices, tricks and devices for the purnose of swindel fraud, forgery and theft and also usury and to further usuriotis practicos, That all the fore going ud law ful practices annly to plaintiff in this chse.

VT,

Thጶt Plaintff it is engraged with the rederal Req erw o system of creat in t; unlawfully, proney and credit by bookeepin r entry unon its books as it clid in

this case, all of which is inconstitutional and void in violation of laws

gf

relating to forgery and usury.

W II,

. That said Note dated on or about ‘ay 8, 1964 is all without lawful coni ideration and is void,

VIII, That the reccriling of Sai d*sort gage and the Sheriff’s sa le constitutes

e fer an t o slander of title of Riažкrifft; nroperty.

Wherefore, she fendant demands Judgment as follows: l. That Defendant be adjudged not guilty, with Judgment entercd for Defendant to that effect together with Costs taxed against Plaintiff nnd

that an execution issue therefore,

  1. That the said $1400.00 loe be declared null and void as not founded upon a lawful oonsideration.
  2. That said Mortgage nnd Sheri ff’s 3 a le be li k ewt se declared n1 i Ford void as not founded troon a lawful consideration,
  3. That P1 nint i ff has no right, title or interest in said nremii și es r r 1 i en

thereon,

  1. That P1 aont iff is net ent : ; ce te resover the nossession of the n remises

described in the Complaint. ابر”

ay

November 30, 1968

بس

STATE OF ANNESOTA fN JISTICE (CORT

cor MTY of scơTT NSPO CREDITRIVER

MARTIN v. MAHoNEY, Jisrnce

First Nationaal Bank of Montgomery, – Plaint1ff,

W3 ANSER AND COUNTERCLAIM

Jerotre Daly fe end sint,

be fendant, Jeroe Daly, for his Answer and Counterelnir here in states

and all ges:

Defendant denies generally each and every to atter and thing in Plaintiff’s

Complaint oxeep t as is here rafter a legod,

I Alleges that Defendant is now and has been at all times here in materia

the owner in fee of the profalses deseribed in the Cenplant and now is in

noa aaa sa ion thera of.

Alleges that Defendant is now and has been at all ties here in waterial

the oswaer in fee of the premis es deserbed in the CesArp 1 Maint and now is in

possession thereof.

Alleges that on or about stay 8, 1964 Defendant trade and delivered a nron isory

note in the sun of $14,000.00 along with R aortgage to secure payment of the allegod rete however, bis fendant al leges that said Note and Mortgage are void because said Note and fortgage are not supported by any Is fu consideration

nor did bafendant recleve any lateful consideration for sald Nota nnd Mort page,

W.

Alleges speefcally that the Plaintiff, through its agents created un lotfully, by boeke en ing entry upon the leger books ef sald Bank, the sun of

$14,000,00 in Roney and eredit by which it atterpted to give and grant as a lawful consideration for said tote of #14,00ო. ი0, That said ictivity hy

said Bank is umlawful uneanstitutional und void.

W .

that the Pederal Reserve Barking Act and the National Banking Aet, ln ga

far ag thạy are ສttempted legis lation by the UA tead States authorizing Pedergal Reserve and National Banks as Barking Corporations 1. un constitutional and vo di and not recessary and proper for carrying inte execution the noters Wested in

the tinted States flow by the people. That or the contrary the said cornerations

4x

are set ro maintained and permitted to exist as artifices, tricks and devices

for the purpose of swindel, fraud, forgery and theft and also usury and to further usurious practices. That all the fore going tra lawful practices apnly

to plaintiff in this case,

vi.

P1aintíff is engaged with the Federal Reserve system of creating um af fully Roney and credit by bookeeping entry upon its books as it did iri this case, all of which is un constitutional and void in violation of as relating to forgery and usury.

WEI

That said Note dated about May 8, 1964 is all without lawful

con ideration and is void,

W II .

. That the recording of said Mortgage and the Sheriff’s sale constitutes

Defendants h

slander of title of Ritairiiffks property.

Wherefore, te fondant de aarde twdysent en follows – –

  1. That Defendant be adjudged not guilty with Judgment entered for

Defendant to that effect together with Costs taxed against Plaintiff and

that an execution issue therefore

2, That the said #14,000.00 No be declared nu 11 ad void as not founded

upon a lawful

3, That said Morggage and Sheriff’s Sale be likewis’s declared null and void as not founded troon R lawful consideration.

  1. That P1aintᏎff has no right, ti te or interest in said premaises or 11 en

thereon,

– ど- 2 Y. ۔–.-2 چھے ܐ : यिा

Arnwaagaina gret *A* AA f

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: