Sitting Duck Asset Protection

RE: First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly

IN THE JUSTICE COURT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
TOWNSHIP OF CREDIT RIVER
JUSTICE MARTIN V. MAHONEY

First National Bank of Montgomery,
Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly,
Defendant

JUDGMENT AND DECREE
The above entitled action came on before the Court and a Jury of 12 on December 7,
1968 at 10:00 am.
Plaintiff appeared 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 which 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 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 any right to complain
about the 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 ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1.That the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, 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.
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 of Rights of the Minnesota Constitution and is null and void and that this Court
has jurisdiction to render complete Justice in this Cause.

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.

BY THE COURT
Dated December 9, 1968
Justice MARTIN V. MAHONEY
Credit River Township
Scott County, Minnesota

MEMORANDUM
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 practical 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 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 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 this 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 either 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 fit.

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

BY THE COURT
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 Credit 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.
M.V.M.

JEROME DALY 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.

original sourced from http://www.worldnewsstand.net/money/the-mahoney-case.html