The following article should probably be considered for educational or entertainment purposes only. It is rare to find such an informed judge working for the government who puts the interest of the individual above the financial interests of the banks and their system of credit and money creation. Homeowners facing foreclosure should be fully aware of this case and the arguments, but be warned not to take any of this as actual legal advice.
I first came across the very curious case of Jerome Daly through an article by Ellen Brown, author of the book debt network. This is a 1968 Minnesota foreclosure case that has yet to be overturned, and the issues go right to the heart of the sleight of hand that the banking system is built on. The case also presents an optimistic view of how people can take back the power to create money from private banks.
Jerome Daly was a homeowner living in Minnesota who defaulted on his mortgage. The lender, First National Bank of Montgomery, of course, sued the man for foreclosure. Daly presented his argument to a jury as to why he didn’t owe the bank anything.
Essentially, he argued that the bank had provided no consideration for Daly’s promise to repay the loan. Consideration is one of the requirements for a valid contract, and without it, a contract is void. Daly argued that the mortgage contract was null and that it was not necessary to pay it back 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, 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 owed to the bank. Surprisingly, the jury agreed with him and declared that the mortgage was not a valid contract.
The judge and a representative who testified on behalf of the bank also agreed with Daly’s argument, in effect. The president of the bank, Mr. Morgan, admitted that the money did not exist until Daly received the mortgage, and that the money was created out of thin air.
The judge wrote a supporting decision in the case agreeing with Daly, writing: “Money and credit first appeared when they created it. Mr. Morgan [the bank’s president] admitted that there was no United States law or statute that gave it the right to do this.” Thus, lending Daly the money 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 in accordance with any known law or statute.
This case has been suppressed much more than argued against, and it has not been annulled. What this means for homeowners facing foreclosure is that they may not even owe their bank money, and the lender is trying to take the house to pay off an illegal contract. This case is quite possibly a get out of jail free card.
But that does not mean that local judges allow this kind of rational argument in their courts. The fact that the mortgage contracts can be proven invalid and the lending system a scam does not mean that the corrupt judicial systems allow the truth to be told about the equally corrupt banking system. Political power and money go hand in hand.
So it should come as no surprise that people who have used Daly’s arguments to protect themselves against foreclosure have not always been successful in finding a court that will listen to them. Rubber stamp foreclosure lawsuits make good money for attorneys 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, and they are selling other human beings to an illusion.)
Homeowners, as I mentioned earlier, 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 have received bad loans and are losing their homes because of them, will they rely more on the null mortgage contract argument 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 presented. Even more interesting is that the judge and jury agreed with him.
But, on the less interesting side there will always be the corrupt judges, lawyers and others who profit from the bank scam. As one of them said regarding this topic: “If I let you and everyone else do that, the whole system would collapse… I can’t let you go behind the bench bar… We don’t go behind that curtain!” The “whole system” supports the banks and the government. Why should we expect them to help people defend themselves against illegal acts and contracts?