The Credit River Decision, and how you are deceived.

WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB 2011/02/05 18:04:00
I heard about this, and wanted to share with you. The ongoing crimes of our "government" are our fault, because we all know this stuff and still allow them to continue in their money making operations.
End the Fed.


An honest judge rules honestly on money matters.

Minnesota Trial Court's decision holding the Federal Reserve Act
unconstitutional and VOID; holding the National Banking Act
unconstitutional and VOID; declaring a mortgage acquired by the First
Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota in the regular course of its
business, along with the foreclosure and the sheriff's sale, to be VOID.

Full report:


This decision, which is legally sound, has
the effect of declaring all private mortgages on real and personal
and all U.S. and State bonds held by the Federal Reserve,
National and State Banks to be null and VOID. This amounts to an
of this nation from personal, national and State debt
purportedly owed to this banking system. Every True American owes it to

himself/herself, to his or her country, and to the people
of the world for that matter, to study this decision very carefully and
understand it, for upon it hangs the question of freedom or


The "Credit River Decision" handed down by a jury of 12 on a cold day in December, in the Credit River Township Hall,
was an experience that I'll never forget.

The Chief Justice of the Minnesota
Supreme Court had phoned me a week before the trial and asked me if I
would be an
associate justice in assisting Justice Martin V. Mahoney
since he had never handled a jury trial before. I accepted, and it took
me two
hours to get my car running in the 22 below zero weather.

I got to the court room about 30 minutes
before trial, and helped get the wood stove going, since the trial was
held in an unheated store room of a general store. This
was the first time I met Justice Mahoney, and I was impressed with his
nonsense manner of handling matters before him. My OB was
to help pick the jury, and to keep Jerome Daly and the attorney
the Bank of Montgomery from engaging in a fist fight. The
court room was highly charged, and the Jury was all business.

The banker testified about the mortgage
loan given to Jerome Daly, but then Daly cross examined the banker about
creating of money "out of thin air," and the banker
admitted that this was standard banking practice. When Justice Mahoney
heard the
banker testify that he could "create money out of thin
air," Mahoney said, "It sounds like fraud to me." I looked at the faces
of the
jurors, and they were all agreeing with Mahoney by shaking
their heads and by the looks on their faces.

I must admit that up until that point, I
really didn't believe Jerome's theory, and thought he was making this
After I heard the testimony of the banker, my mouth had
dropped open in shock, and I was in complete disbelief. There was no
doubt in my
mind that the Jury would find for Daly.

Jerome Daly had taken on the banks, the Federal Reserve Banking System, and the money lenders, and had won.

It is now twenty eight years since this
"Landmark Decision," and Justice Mahoney is quoted more often than any
Court justice ever was. The money boys that run the
"private Federal Reserve Bank" soon got back at Mahoney by poisoning him
in what
appeared to have been a fishing boat accident (but with his
body pumped full of poison) in June of 1969, less than 6 months later.

Both Jerome Daly and Justice Martin V. Mahoney are truly the greatest men that I have ever had the pleasure to meet.
The Credit River Decision was and still is the most important legal decision ever decided by a Jury.

Bill Drexler

RE: First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly






&... &... First National Bank of



&... Jerome Daly,

&... Defendant


The above entitled action came on before the
Court and a Jury of 12 on December 7, 1968 at 10:00 am. Plaintiff
by its President Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by
its Counsel, R. Mellby. Defendant appeared on his own behalf.

A Jury of Talesmen were called, impaneled and sworn to try the issues in the 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
Plaintiff 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 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
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,
this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank
in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another
Bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or
Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this. Plaintiff further
that Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and
by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived any right to complain about
Consideration and that the Defendant was estopped from
doing so.

At 12:15 on December 7, 1968 the Jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendant.

Now therefore, by virtue of the authority
vested in me pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest
Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of United States and
the Constitution and the laws of the State of Minnesota not inconsistent

therewith ;


1.That the
Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, Fairview
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.

3.That the Sheriff's sale of the above described premises held on June 26, 1967 is null
and void, of no effect.

4.That the Plaintiff has no right title or interest in said premises or lien thereon as
is above described.

5.That any
provision in the Minnesota Constitution and any Minnesota Statute
binding the
jurisdiction of this Court
is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and to the Bill
Rights of the Minnesota
Constitution and is null and void and that this Court has jurisdiction
to render
complete Justice in this

The following memorandum and any supplementary memorandum made and filed by this Court in
support of this Judgment is hereby made a part hereof by reference.


Dated December 9, 1968


Credit River Township

Scott County, Minnesota


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
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.

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, 51 and 52 of Am Jur 2nd "Actions" on page 584 – "no action will lie
recover on a claim based upon, or in any manner depending
upon, a fraudulent, illegal, or immoral transaction or contract to
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 right
can be built.

Nothing in the Constitution of the United
States limits the jurisdiction of this Court, which is one of original
Jurisdiction with right of trial by Jury guaranteed. This
is a Common Law action. Minnesota cannot limit or impair the power of
Court to render Complete Justice between the parties.
Any provisions in the Constitution and laws of Minnesota which attempt
to do so
is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and
void. No question as to the Jurisdiction of this Court was raised by
party at the trial. Both parties were given complete
liberty to submit any and all facts to the Jury, at least in so far as
they saw

No complaint was made by Plaintiff that
Plaintiff did not receive a fair trial. From the admissions made by Mr.
the path of duty was direct and clear for the Jury.
Their Verdict could not reasonably been otherwise. Justice was rendered
and without denial, promptly and without delay, freely
and without purchase, conformable to the laws in this Court of December
7, 1968.


December 9, 1968

Justice Martin V. Mahoney

Credit River Township

Scott County, Minnesota.

Note: It has never been doubted that a
Note given on a Consideration 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 emission of Bills of
upon the books of these private Corporations for the
purpose 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.

had his own information to reveal about this case, which establishes that between his own revealed information and the fact
that Justice Martin V. Mahoney was murdered 6 months after he entered the Credit River Decision on
the books of the Court, why the case was never legally overturned, nor can it be.



The above Judgment was entered by the Court on December
9, 1968. The issue there was simple - Nothing in the law
gave the Banks the right to create money on their books. The Bank filed a

Notice of Appeal within 10 days. The Appeals statutes
must be strictly followed, otherwise the District Court does not acquire

Jurisdiction upon Appeal. To effect the Appeal the Bank
had to deposit $2.00 with the Clerk within 10 days for payment to the
when he made his return to the District Court. The Bank
deposited two $1.00 Federal Reserve Notes. The Justice refused the Notes
refused to allow the Appeal upon the grounds that the
Notes were unlawful and void for any purpose. The Decision is addressed
to the
legality of these Notes and the Federal Reserve System.
The Cases of Edwards v. Kearnzey and Craig vs Missouri set
out in
the decision should be studied very carefully as they
bear on the inviolability of Contracts. This is the Crux of the whole
Jerome Daly.


Justice Mahoney denied the use of Federal Reserve
Notes, since they represent debt instruments, not true money, from being
to pay for the appeal process itself. In order to
get this overturned, since the bank's appeal without the payment being
recognized was out of time, it would have required
that the Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota bring a Title 42, Section 1983
against the judicial act of Justice Mahoney for a
violation of the Constitution of the United States under color of law or

authority, and if successful, have the case
remanded back to him to either retry the case or allow the appeal to go
But the corrupt individuals behind the bank(s)
were unable to ever elicit such a decision from any federal court due to
the fact
that because of their vile hatred for him and what
he had done to them and their little Queen's Scheme, had him murdered
as them murdering him) just about 6 months later.
And so, the case stands, just as it was. Amazingly, if they hadn't
been so
arrogant about the value of their federal reserve
notes and paid the Justice just 2 measly silver dollars, or else 4
measly half
dollars, or else 8 measly quarters, or else 20
measly dimes, or else 40 measly nickels, or else 200 measly pennies,
they could
have had their appeal and would not have had to
get blood on their hands.
Add Photos & Videos

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2016/02/06 09:19:47

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals