-
This is a real case from 1968
Here is the link for the case…https://www.bitchute.com/video/aL9Fk93sxhg2
bitchute.com
PROOF LOANS ARE FRAUD 📒 MORTGAGES ARE FAKE AND AMERICANS ARE BEING ROBBED [JEROME DALY CASE]
Proof Loans are Fraud, Mortgages are Fake and Americans are Being ROBBED, Jerome Daly Case. Source: https://x.com/XPHOENIXDRAGON/status/1890586203923120638 Thumbnail: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Savings_and_loan_fraud https://4closurefraud.org/2009/12/02/jerome-daly-the-mahoney-credit-river-decision/ A Minnesota Trial Court’s decision holding the Federal Reserve Act unconstitutional and VOID; holding the National Banking Act unconstitutional and … Continue reading
-
21 Replies
-
Here is the actual case where a decision was made in the US to anul a mortgage in 1968… https://ia800703.us.archive.org/6/items/pdfy-83f9GYTm1KE7PLuo/Jerome-Daly-The-Mahoney-Credit-River-Decision.pdf
-
Unfortunately the Judge in this case was found dead floating down the river.
I’m currently going through the Williams & Williams, Contract Killer course, the essence of which is to discharge/offset all presumed debts by way of us being the creditor which is correct, although I think if his strategy gains traction there may be consequences for him.
-
If the judgment still stands that’s really all that matters.
-
-
Unfortunately that decision didn’t stand, it did not set a legal precedent, the case was nullified on appeal due to the Justice of the Peace not having the power to make such a decision.
All subsequent cases citing this case have been denied.
-
Thanks for that, where did you find evidence of that?
-
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Montgomery_v._Daly
en.m.wikipedia.org
First National Bank of Montgomery v. Daly - Wikipedia
First National Bank of Montgomery v. Daly - Wikipedia
-
There seems to be more to this case than meets the eye.
It would seem Daly had pre-planned the controversy to disclose the workings of the banking system by highlighting their fraudulent means of operating.
-
That’s interesting. Even if this ruling was overturned it seems the only fault was using a JP, have I got that correct? If that is the case we could use a Notary and if a Notary public refused or wasn’t available for any reason then we can fill out a protest where no notary is available and use three witnesses instead as in the PDF below.
-
-
That’s a handy document, thanks.
The Law librarian fleshes the issue out somewhat, they (Library) use terms like ‘Law on the edge’ etc, Daly, it seems, was a political/Legal activist and that case wasn’t his first Rodeo.
Daly ‘rightfully’ was attempting to expose the the Coup (takeover) of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act which compelled the population at large to become surety for All government spending, by 1913 the ‘United States’, a corporation, see: Dun & Bradstreet. Had, I think for the third/forth time, become insolvent, at that stage the banks had already acquired All U.S assets, all federal land, Buildings and natural resources by way ‘Loans’ to the Corpo-government which had to be repaid in Gold. Since there were no resources (Gold/Property) left to take the bankers devised the plan of using the people as their piggy bank, surety to guarantee their never ending loan repayments, hence direct taxation, income tax, the clever bit was inventing an alias for every wo/man.
Perpetual slavery through the trust fund/Birth certificate, Brilliant!
Anyhoo, Daly was aware of the scam and the trial was to highlight it. I believe his mistake was to use fiat currency to obtain the property in question. He didn’t come with clean hands, hence his dis-barring.
Few, sorry for the long winded blurb.
-
-
Thanks for clarifying that. What else in your opinion do you think he could have used instead of fiat currency to ensuree he came with clean hands?
-
As an attorney he could have filed a lawsuit on behalf of someone who was already in default with their mortgage and represented them. Clean Hands!
Minnesota State Law Library.
Para 5
“He has taken personal advantage of the system he attacks by borrowing money from the bank to purchase lakeside property….obligating him neither to pay the debt nor to surrender possession”
Para 5
“Can hardly be regarded as zealous advocacy or a good faith effort to test the validity of repeated decisions of courts of record”.
He consented to entering a Contract with the intention of breaching same.
Anticipatory Breach. Dishonour!
Why did he not just sue for breach of contract and then present his case?
Not the sharpest sledgehammer in the toolbox!
-
No he doesn’t seem to be, but maybe it was an exercise to deter people from challenging the banks. Just as Alex Jones the shill went to court over something (he was talking about the false flag shooting at one of the schools in his podcasts and they prosecuted him for it) and he just gave in to the ruling that was made even though there was lots of evidence to show it was a false flag event (he had to pay reparations to the families) and it put bad case law in place that effectively made it much more easy to prosecute anyone and penalise them financially for questioning false flag events.
-
Alex Jones, never criticised not barely mentioned Jews in his entire puff, yes another captured shill although I would say his predictions over the years have been very accurate.
Daly: he and Mahoney presented factual evidence regarding the money supply, I think the problem was that the new fiat system had already been implemented, how could that be reversed in practical terms?
I’m subscribed to a law website called empire the people, they have a mortgage challenge event for the members where they go through stepped processes towards redeeming all monies back, around 40 members in the process, Don’t think anyone completed it yet.
We know the banks are acting illegally, but the people do get the house, that’s just something that kinda doesn’t sit right with me. You get something but look to redeem all money back which is something for nothing, the reverse of what the banks do to us but effectively we get something without giving consideration to the contract.
Don’t know if that makes sense but it’s something that’s always irked me when addressing this issue.
What do you think?
-
Yes I believe we are getting something, the question is, what are they getting? Billions on the backs of the persons or citizens in any country they start to predate on, so is that equitable? Also there is the question of the c’est te que vie trust, was that not set up on the premise of them taking care of the person’s needs and in return they get to use all of the resources in the country for their benefit? Do they not in fact tell us if we can use them or not? Do they not burden us with rules and regulations which tightly control every move we make on the land? Do they not have a duty of care to the people in the country? Aren’t the people entitled to a share of what the resources on their land reap in terms of profit? Where is our share? Why are we stopped from using these resources? If we could use them any time we wanted to then wouldn’t we be able to build our own houses in co-operation with each other, the only cost being our labour? So yes we are getting a house to live in, but do we have a choice as to how we gain this house or are we forced to get mortgages which can cripple us financially for life? Are they crippled under the burden of debt or do they make millions and live in luxury on our backs and labour and is that equitable? Because of this vast wealth they accumulate, none of their families ever have to get a loan to get property, is that equitable or does their carte blanche access to resources and wealth give them an unfair advantage over the ones they are parasiting from? Why are we told we must work, work, work, but they, at the flick of a finger because of their access to our funds and our countries resources, can get others to do their bidding and they do not have to work a day in their lives because of their access to our natural wealth, in the form of our energy and labour and the natural resources in our countries, does that sound fair or equitable? So once we are given a choice of how we acquire our properties and given access to all of the resources in our country to enable us to gain from them and to release the iron grip they have on our throats then maybe the argument can be made for us to have a financial noose around our necks if we so choose. Do we have a choice at the moment? If we do not have a choice then what is the equitable remedy? If we do not have access to the resources in our countries but have to pay for everything we use when they get it for free, then what is the equitable remedy to that? Could it be that our share of the profits needs to be given to us and if yes what would that share amount to? Would the cost of a house then seem a ridiculously small price and only a fraction of what we should equitably be receiving?
-
Well explained, that admonishes any doubts I may have held.
Thanks for that liberating monologue.
Very helpful
-
-
-
-
-
lewrockwell.com
There Is No Antisemitism Crisis In Australia. It’s A Carefully Constructed Lie. - LewRockwell
The Murdoch-owned Daily Telegraph has been caught trying to orchestrate what can only be described as a mass media psyop to inflame public hysteria about antisemitism in Australia. In a project internally titled “UNDERCOVERJEW” supposedly designed to show “what it’s like being Jewish in … Continue reading
-
The real question is why are they revealing this to the public? They usually support these kind of psyops in the media. Are they trying to convince everyone they now have an honest Government? The Jewish community is well known for creating the anti-semitism stories and they have been doing it for a very long time. The most famous psyop is the ‘holocaust’ and that was incredibly well supported in the education system, all medias and we were drenched with the lies.
-
