The little case that threatened the entire Banking system.
I want to tell you about a simple little case from an obscure little court, where the findings and verdict posed such a danger to the money power, that they tried to prevent the judge from even entering the verdict. He refused. One week later the judge had an “unfortunate” fishing accident and died.
As for the lawyer/individual who brought the case and won it to the jury? Well he was coincidentally disbarred. Oh and the case findings? they were “nullified” on procedural grounds because well, “that’s the law”. And now of course, any lawyer who attempts to cite the case, well, they too face sanctions and possible disbarment by the “licensing” system the government runs that “allows” them to operate in the “legal system” the government runs. Remember, it is all just “following the law”. What, do you not “support law and order”? You probably hate kittens too then.
So what in the world could the case have stood for that made the system reacts so violently? Simple. It exposed the truth about the banking system in a simple and straightforward way that allowed anyone to understand the fraud that it is.
And, just as importantly, it showed how the people could defend themselves.
Before I tell you about “The Credit River Case” I want to make sure you understand the legal issue. In order to have a contract even the NSA admits you need the following.
At common law, the elements of a contract are offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations, and consideration.
This just means the parties have to discuss terms, come to agreement on the terms and then we both have to be OBLIGATED to exchange something of value. The something of value is called “consideration” in the law. Here, from the same NSA link, is what they say about that.
Consideration is something of value given by a promissor to a promisee in exchange for something of value given by a promisee to a promissor. Typically, the thing of value is a payment, although it may be an act, or forbearance to act, when one is privileged to do so, such as an adult refraining from smoking. This thing of value or forbearance from some legal right is considered to be a legal detriment. In the exchange of legal detriments, a bargain is created.
So not only do we have to agree to the exchange, but you have to each exchange something of value that is considered a “legal detriment”. It must be real. If you pay me with counterfeit money, well, the contract “fails for lack of consideration”, in legal terminology. You “gave me” something that “was not real and not what we discussed” so I didn’t get the “benefit of the bargain” That is really all contract law is, a formal discussion of agreements between people.
So now with that legal understanding, let’s look at the “Credit River Case”. I encourage you to go look at all of the paperwork yourself if you are interested.
The case is straightforward. The Bank/Plaintiff was trying to foreclose, and the property owner/Defendant was defending the action claiming that there was no valid consideration given by the bank under the contract because it simply created the “money” that it “gave” by making a bookkeeping entry. Here is how the court described it.
Lawrence V. Morgan was the only witness called for Plaintiff (Bank) 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 …by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed….
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 (the Bank’s only witness) 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.
So a straightforward simple case with very straightforward allegations. The case was tried to a jury. They found against the bank. Basically finding that the bank WAS NOT ENTITLED TO POSSESSION because it hadn’t given ANY CONSIDERATION when it made the mortgage!!
Here is the short memorandum opinion that the court entered into the record with the order after the trial. The order the powers that be did everything they could to prevent the judge from entering.
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….
Plaintiff’s (Bank’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….
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.
And that is the case and the opinion that quite literally set off a sh**storm. Why? Because it very simply explained the fraud that is Banking. And when given the undisputed facts, the jury had quite RIGHTLY found that there is no actual consideration given by the Bank because the bank just creates the money out of thin air. It doesn’t actually LEND MONEY IT HAS so the contract is not valid!
Do you see how dangerous this case is? Under no circumstances can these ideas become known or discussed openly as anything even POSSIBLY legitimate. It Had to be “erased” and found to be “kookery”.
Think of the implications otherwise. A jury of regular people had been told the truth about what banks clearly do EVERYDAY and they saw that it is nothing but fraud. Nobody has agreed to allow banks to create money out of thin air. The mortgages and other loans the bank’s make do not have any actual consideration!
Most people in the country assume that when someone borrows money from a bank that the bank is actually lending you some of the money that it has on deposit. But that is just not true under the fractional reserve system we have. And if people understood this undeniable fact, as Henry Ford said, there would be a revolution overnight. And so those in charge make sure nobody does find out.
“The process by which money is created is so simple the mind is repelled.”—John Kenneth Galbraith
The law quite literally gives a protected class of private individuals, “central bankers”, (and their facilitators) the right to create money out of thin air, and then to “lend out” the made up money and collect interest on it. You have to work. They do not.
“The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take away from them the power to create money and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money.” — Josiah Stamp Former Director of the Bank of England
The poor soon to be dead judge in this case clearly was a man of principle. He believed the big lie he had been told about our country and the founding documents and our supposed “freedom”. He believed the system was what he had been taught. He was sadly mistaken and apparently paid for that mistake with his life in the form of a fishing accident.
There are two basic types of control systems. Overt systems, meaning openly with force or threats, and covert systems, enforced, by way of disguise or in secret. In an OVERT system of control, the people CAN SEE the force used to keep them down, like in North Korea. Therefore they KNOW that the legal system is rigged against them. In a covert system the people are tricked into imagining they are in control and that therefore the legal system is “fair”. That is the key difference.
Our system is a covert system. Therefore the ENTIRE system relies upon the people believing that they are in charge of the system, that the system works for them and that it is fair.
One of the most difficult concepts for people to grasp and accept is that the legal system is not there to dispense justice. It is there to control you under the GUISE that it is there to dispense justice.
The only obstacle that any covert system faces, such as ours, is making sure the people don’t find out the TRUTH about the system. Like the truth that this case exposes. And that is why so much time and money is spent brainwashing people very early on in government schools under government curriculum about justice and liberty and pledges of allegiance, etc. etc. And that is why the media tells us nonstop about how just and wonderful a country we have our whole lives.
So now that you see the reality of the system, let’s recap what happened in this case. The BANK filed the case in the court. The BANK looked to the Court to take the property. The bank did not complain it didn’t get a fair trial. The bank did not complain it was not allowed to put on its evidence. The evidence used by the jury was the BANK’S own witness’ admissions. The facts of this case were not in dispute!
And what was the result of all this after the jury found against the bank? The bank ended up winning “later” on procedural grounds after the judge ended up dead, and the lawyer ended up disbarred. Do you see the real system yet?
What more does it take for you to see that the Constitution prevents NOTHING! It is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem. Continuously talking about “getting back to it” and “enforcing it” and “its principles and limitations” just drains off energy that could be used to create REAL change.
If the constitution or the system actually did anything that people imagine, then outcomes like THIS could never happen. And if they did, the people would know about them and those responsible would have been brought to justice. But none of THAT ACTUALLY happened because that is not what the system ACTUALLY does.
The system is there to control you, but its success depends entirely on you never finding this fact out.
I can’t take anymore freedom today. Plus there are the limitations of space. There is a lot more to the case that happened afterwards. If you want to find out about it, I wrote about that here. Because I am done for today.
I hope you learned something. Take care my brainwashed Brethren. Live in the light and tell someone the truth about the law.