The following article should probably be considered for educational or entertainment purposes only. It is rare to find such a knowledgeable judge working for government that puts the interest of the individual over the financial interests of the banks and their system of credit and money creation. Homeowners facing foreclosure should absolutely be aware of this case and the arguments, but taking any of this as actual legal advice should be warned against.
I first stumbled across the very curious case of Jerome Daly through an article by Ellen Brown, author of the book Web of Debt. It concerns a foreclosure case in Minnesota in 1968 that has yet to be overturned, and the issues go straight to the heart of the sleight of hand that the banking system is built upon. The case also presents an optimistic view of how individuals can take back the power to create money from the private banks.
Jerome Daly was a homeowner living in Minnesota who stopped paying his mortgage. The lender, First National Bank of Montgomery, of course, sued the man for foreclosure. Daly presented his argument before a jury as to why he did not owe the bank anything.
Essentially, he argued that the bank had not provided any consideration for Daly’s promise to pay back the loan. Consideration is one of the requirements for a valid contract, and without it, a contract is void. Daly was arguing that the mortgage contract was void and did not need to be repaid because the bank had not actually given him any money. The lender had created the money out of thin air in response to the promise to repay the loan.
This credit, argued Daly, was not real 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 owed to the bank. Astoundingly 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 Daly’s argument, in effect. The bank’s president, Mr. Morgan, admitted that the money did not exist until Daly was given the mortgage, and the money was created out of thin air.
The judge wrote a supporting decision in the case agreeing with Daly, writing “The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan [the bank’s president] admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this.” Thus, the lending of the money to Daly in the form of a mortgage did not constitute valid consideration. The bank did not even have the authority to create money out of thin air according to any known law or statute.
This case has been suppressed far more than argued against, and it has not been overturned. What this means to homeowners facing foreclosure is that they may not even owe their bank any money, and the lender is trying to take the home to pay an illegal contract. This case is, quite possibly, a get out of debt-jail free card.
But that does not mean that the local judges will allow these kinds of rational arguments in their courtrooms. Just because mortgage contracts can be proven invalid and the lending system a scam does not mean that corrupt judicial systems will allow the truth to be told about the equally-corrupt banking system. Political power and money work hand-in-hand.
Thus, it should not be surprising that people who have used the Daly arguments to protect against foreclosure have not always been successful in finding a court to listen to them. Rubber stamping foreclosure lawsuits generates good money for lawyers in the form of legal fees and for local county courts in the form of filing fees. (Of course, neither of these parties seem to be aware that the money they are helping to steal was created out of thin air itself, and they are selling out fellow human beings to an illusion.)
Homeowners, as I mentioned above, should be aware of this argument, because it shows the banking system to be the scam that it is. Now that so many more homeowners were given bad loans and are losing their houses because of them, will more of them rely on the argument of a void mortgage contract and the unconstitutionality of the monetary system itself? That remains to be seen, but it is a convincing, rational, and very interesting argument that Daly put forth. Even more interesting is that the judge and jury agreed with him.
But, on the less interesting side will always be the corrupt judges, lawyers, and others who benefit from the banking scam. As one of them stated in regards to this issue, “If I let you do that — you and everyone else — it would bring the whole system down… I cannot let you go behind the bar of the bank… We are not going behind that curtain!” The “whole system” supports the banks and the government — why should we expect them to help people defend against unlawful acts and contracts?