It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


We deserve to be slaves!

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 6 2012 @ 07:49 AM
No one human has the right to enslave another human.


edit on 6-5-2012 by Od1nson because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 12:53 PM
reply to post by ukWolf

Interesting stuff but don't expect to b taken seriously if you're getting your facts from zeitgeist. That guy has been proven over and over again for stating made up facts and being 98% bull#. He's not a real conspiracy theorist, he's a film maker. And there is certainly a huge difference between the two.

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 03:08 PM
reply to post by OGOldGreg

Lucky for me then I picked up on the 2% non BS

All the original court documents at the link, including the appeal which the bank won.

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 12:02 AM
reply to post by ukWolf

Thanks for directing me to the case papers. If anything would scare me off trying to advance these arguments, it would be that case.

First, the "judge" who approved Daly's argument and found against the bank, was a Justice of the Peace and was not even a lawyer. He had no authority to issue a ruling on this case, a fact of which the Supreme Court of Minnesota had to remind him.

Second, the JP's ruling on another aspect of the case was based upon his belief that the fee paid to the court by the bank in cash, was not valid because it wasn't in silver or gold.

Third, the Supreme Court ordered Daly and the JP to basically straighten up and get serious.

Fourth, Daly and the JP violated the Supreme Court's orders. The JP died before the Court could punish him, and Daly was disbarred, the biggest professional punishment a lawyer can get.

DO NOT RELY on this case for anything, except how to do everything wrong.

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 07:25 AM
reply to post by charles1952

Personally I think your missing the point and muddying the waters a little, what should be focused on is what the testimoney of the bank president was;

The president of the bank Lawrence V. Morgan, appearing as the plaintiff’s only witness,

admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books and 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.”

The bank manager admitted that the bank had created the money (credit) out of thin air and loaned it to the defendant, without first explaining to the defendant, where the money came from.

100,000 @ 5% over 25 years means for writing in a book or typing into a computer the bank created the money and will collect 75,000 for managing the book/account. Easy money or what!

Thats what I and everyone needs to see and understand

The same/similar issue is being tested again now in a South African Court
Banks have made citizens crack

I can understand some of the legal basis for the case - simply put, that one must possess that which one loans. Banks, according to the applicants, are unable to meet the fundamental criteria for a valid borrower/lender contract. The argument is that banks don't create loans at all - basically they have been legally allowed to issue new money as an interest bearing loan without the backing of real goods and or services....

One commentator on calls it a "fundamentally dishonest practice that is built in to the very foundations of our current money system. It is nothing but counterfeiting and if ordinary citizens were found guilty of doing such a thing they would rightly be goaled - rightly because to issue new money without the backing of real goods and/or services of equivalent value is fraudulent and it debases the currency, we know it as inflation."

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 02:16 PM
reply to post by ukWolf

Dear ukWolf,

You're very likely correct that I'm missing the point. But still, does the banker's testimony mean anything? It seems like admitting I drove my car today. Besides, the arguments Daly proposed have been defeated.

In handing down the disbarment decision against Daly, the court had this criticism:

respondent's persistent and continuing attacks on our national monetary system can hardly be regarded as zealous advocacy or a good-faith effort to test the validity of repeated decisions of courts of record. For, as found by the referee, up to the time of his findings and recommendations respondent had avoided payment of any Federal income tax for 1965 and subsequent years on the asserted ground that he has not received gold and silver coin and, therefore, had no earnings that were taxable. Also, he has taken personal advantage of the system he attacks by borrowing money from a bank to purchase lakeside property, only to subsequently defeat the bank's repossession after mortgage foreclosure by taking the position that the bank's extension of credit was unlawful, obligating him neither to pay the debt nor to surrender possession following expiration of the time to redeem. As detailed in the referee's finding, we regard the tactics employed by respondent in the unlawful detainer proceedings before the justice of the peace as not only unprofessional but reprehensible.

And in another case which relied on the arguments of Daly and JP Mahoney, the Court said:

Furthermore, the Minnesota cases cited by Plaintiff are not only unreported, but they have been vacated by the Minnesota Supreme Court in reported decisions. See In re Daly, 284 Minn. 567, 171 N.W.2d 818; Zurn v. Northwestern Nat. Bank of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 600, 284 Minn. 573 (Minn. 1969); Daly v. Savage State Bank, 171 N.W.2d 218, 218, 285 Minn. 503, 503 (Minn. 1969). Plaintiff is hereby admonished she must not cite any decision under which Justice Martin Mahoney purported to question the validity of federal currency or the Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve Act, nor may she cite any opinion or decision as authoritative which no longer has authoritative status. (Emphasis added)

I may still be missing the point, but it seems to me that the courts (at least in Minnesota) have said the arguments used are completely invaild.

With respect,

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in