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
CREDIT RIVER DECISION Page 1 of 5
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.
CREDIT RIVER DECISION Page 2 of 5
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
CREDIT RIVER DECISION Page 3 of 5
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:
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.
Documents From The Courts Files
CREDIT RIVER DECISION Page 4 of 5
1st National Bank Of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly, Scott
County Minnesota.
CREDIT RIVER DECISION Page 5 of 5
