[ad_1]
The following article should probably be considered for educational or entertainment purposes only. It is rare to find such a learned judge working for the government who puts the interest of the individual above the financial interest of the banks and their lending system and wealth creation. Homeowners facing foreclosure should be fully aware of the case and the arguments, but should be cautioned against taking any of this as actual legal advice.
I first stumbled upon the very curious case of Jerome Daly through an article by Ellen Brown, author of the book debt trap, It deals with a 1968 criminal case in Minnesota that has not yet been overturned, and the issues go straight to the heart of the sleight of hand on which the banking system is built. The case also offers an optimistic view of how individuals can take back the power to create money from private banks.
Jerome Daly was a homeowner living in Minnesota who stopped paying his mortgage. The lender, First National Bank of Montgomery, sued the man for foreclosure, of course. Daly presented his argument to the jury as to why he owed the bank nothing.
Essentially, he argued that the bank had given no consideration for Daly’s promise to pay back the loan. Consideration is a requirement for a valid contract, and without it, a contract is void. Daly was arguing that the mortgage contract was void and was not required to be repaid because the bank had not actually loaned him any money. The money was created out of thin air by the lender in response to a promise to repay the loan.
This credit, Daly argued, was not actual money that counted as consideration and therefore did not need to be paid back. Without valid consideration, the mortgage contract was null and void and nothing was payable to the bank. Amazingly enough, the jury agreed with him and declared that the mortgage was not a valid contract.
The judge and a representative testifying on behalf of the bank also agreed with Daley’s argument. The bank’s president, Mr. Morgan, admits that the money did not exist until Daly was given the mortgage, and that the money was created out of thin air.
The judge wrote a supporting decision in the case, agreeing with Daly, “Money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan [the bank’s president] acknowledged that no law or statute of the United States existed which empowered him to do so. Money out of thin air according to any known law or statute.
The matter has been suppressed more than it has been argued, and has not been overturned. For homeowners facing foreclosure, this means they may not even owe their bank any money, and the lender is trying to take the home to pay off an illegal contract. This case is largely a get out of debt jail free card.
But that doesn’t mean local judges will allow these kinds of reasoned arguments into their courtrooms. Just because mortgage contracts can be invalidated and the lending system a scam does not mean that a corrupt judicial system will allow the truth to be told about an equally corrupt banking system. Political power and money go hand in hand.
Thus, it should not be surprising that those who have used Daley arguments to defend against foreclosure have not always been successful in finding a court to hear them. Rubber stamping criminal lawsuits generate good money in the form of legal fees for attorneys and filing fees for local county courts. (Of course, neither of these parties is aware that the money they are helping to steal was created out of thin air, and they are selling fellow humans in a delusion.)
Homeowners, as I mentioned above, should be aware of this argument, as it shows the banking system the scam that it is. Now that so many more homeowners were given bad loans and are losing their homes because of them, will more of them trust the logic of the zero mortgage contract and the unconstitutionality of the monetary system itself? It remains to be seen, but it is a sound, reasoned and very interesting argument that Daly put forward. Even more interesting, the judge and jury agreed with him.
But, the less interesting side will always be the corrupt judges, lawyers and others who benefit from banking scams. As one of them said regarding the issue, “If I let you do this – you and everyone else – it will bring down the whole system… I can’t let you behind the bars of the bank.. . We’re not going behind that curtain!” The “whole system” supports the banks and the government – why should we expect them to help people defend against illegal acts and contracts?
[ad_2]