If the money was free then why does anyone owe it?

VERY Interesting dialogue. Like Socrates, it makes its point by analogy. If the free money came from the borrower, there would be no question about whether the “bank” was owed the money — in fact it would be the “bank” that owed the money to its customer. So why is it OK for them to claim the money when they got the free money elsewhere INCLUDING the borrower through his tax dollars? I got this from the comment board. The submission was from someone who got it from “Taxcore.”


your attorney could make use of any of the following, but just in case… I recently got this from “Taxcore:”
For those that may have wondered how a loan works in a fiat currency debt based banking system here it is. Here’s how a “bank loan” really works.
Interviews with bankers about a foreclosure. The banker was placed on the witness stand and sworn in. The plaintiff’s (borrower’s) attorney asked the banker the routine questions concerning the banker’s education and background.
The attorney asked the banker, “What is court exhibit A?”
The banker responded by saying, “This is a promissory note.”
The attorney then asked, “Is there an agreement between Mr. Smith (borrower) and the defendant?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Do you believe the agreement includes a lender and a borrower?”
The banker responded by saying, “Yes, I am the lender and Mr. Smith is the borrower.”
The attorney asked, “What do you believe the agreement is?”
The banker quickly responded, saying, ” We have the borrower sign the note and we give the borrower a check.”
The attorney asked, “Does this agreement show the words borrower, lender, loan, interest, credit, or money within the agreement?”
The banker responded by saying, “Sure it does.”
The attorney asked, `”According to your knowledge, who was to loan what to whom according to the written agreement?”
The banker responded by saying, “The lender loaned the borrower a $50,000 check. The borrower got the money and the house and has not repaid the money.”
The attorney noted that the banker never said that the bank received the promissory note as a loan from the borrower to the bank. He asked, “Do you believe an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand this written agreement?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Do you believe you or your company legally own the promissory note and have the right to enforce payment from the borrower?”
The banker said, “Absolutely we own it and legally have the right to collect the money.”
The attorney asked, “Does the $50,000 note have actual cash value of $50,000? Actual cash value means the promissory note can be sold for $50,000 cash in the ordinary course of business.”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “According to your understanding of the alleged agreement, how much actual cash value must the bank loan to the borrower in order for the bank to legally fulfill the agreement and legally own the promissory note?”
The banker said, “$50,000.”
The attorney asked, “According to your belief, if the borrower signs the promissory note and the bank refuses to loan the borrower $50,000 actual cash value, would the bank or borrower own the promissory note?”
The banker said, “The borrower would own it if the bank did not loan the money. The bank gave the borrower a check and that is how the borrower financed the purchase of the house.”
The attorney asked, “Do you believe that the borrower agreed to provide the bank with $50,000 of actual cash value which was used to fund the $50,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower, and then agreed to pay the bank back $50,000 plus interest?”
The banker said, “No. If the borrower provided the $50,000 to fund the check, there was no money loaned by the bank so the bank could not charge interest on money it never loaned.”
The attorney asked, “If this happened, in your opinion would the bank legally own the promissory note and be able to force Mr. Smith to pay the bank interest and principal payments?”
The banker said, “I am not a lawyer so I cannot answer legal questions.”
The attorney asked, ” Is it bank policy that when a borrower receives a $50,000 bank loan, the bank receives $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower, that this gives value to a $50,000 bank loan check, and this check is returned to the borrower as a bank loan which the borrower must repay?”
The banker said, “I do not know the bookkeeping entries.”
The attorney said, “I am asking you if this is the policy.”
The banker responded, “I do not recall.”
The attorney again asked, “Do you believe the agreement between Mr. Smith and the bank is that Mr. Smith provides the bank with actual cash value of $50,000 which is used to fund a $50,000 bank loan check back to himself which he is then required to repay plus interest back to the same bank?”
The banker said, ” I am not a lawyer.”
The attorney said, “Did you not say earlier that an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand this written agreement?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney handed the bank loan agreement marked “Exhibit B” to the banker. He said, “Is there anything in this agreement showing the borrower had knowledge or showing where the borrower gave the bank authorization or permission for the bank to receive $50,000 actual cash value from him and to use this to fund the $50,000 bank loan check which obligates him to give the bank back $50,000 plus interest?”
The banker said, “No.”
The lawyer asked, “If the borrower provided the bank with actual cash value of $50,000 which the bank used to fund the $50,000 check and returned the check back to the alleged borrower as a bank loan check, in your opinion, did the bank loan $50,000 to the borrower?”
The banker said, “No.”
The attorney asked, “If a bank customer provides actual cash value of $50,000 to the bank and the bank returns $50,000 actual cash value back to the same customer, is this a swap or exchange of $50,000 for $50,000.”
The banker replied, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Did the agreement call for an exchange of $50,000 swapped for $50,000, or did it call for a $50,000 loan?”
The banker said, “A $50,000 loan.”
The attorney asked, “Is the bank to follow the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures when banks grant loans.”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “What are the standard bank bookkeeping entries for granting loans according to the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures?” The attorney handed the banker FED publication Modern Money Mechanics, marked “Exhibit C”.
The banker said, “The promissory note is recorded as a bank asset and a new matching deposit (liability) is created. Then we issue a check from the new deposit back to the borrower.”
The attorney asked, “Is this not a swap or exchange of $50,000 for $50,000?”
The banker said, “This is the standard way to do it.”
The attorney said, “Answer the question. Is it a swap or exchange of $50,000 actual cash value for $50,000 actual cash value? If the note funded the check, must they not both have equal value?”
The banker then pleaded the Fifth Amendment.
The attorney asked, “If the bank’s deposits (liabilities) increase, do the bank’s assets increase by an asset that has actual cash value?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Is there any exception?”
The banker said, “Not that I know of.”
The attorney asked, “If the bank records a new deposit and records an asset on the bank’s books having actual cash value, would the actual cash value always come from a customer of the bank or an investor or a lender to the bank?”
The banker thought for a moment and said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Is it the bank policy to record the promissory note as a bank asset offset by a new liability?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney said, “Does the promissory note have actual cash value equal to the amount of the bank loan check?”
The banker said “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Does this bookkeeping entry prove that the borrower provided actual cash value to fund the bank loan check?”
The banker said, “Yes, the bank president told us to do it this way.”
The attorney asked, “How much actual cash value did the bank loan to obtain the promissory note?”
The banker said, “Nothing.”
The attorney asked, “How much actual cash value did the bank receive from the borrower?”
The banker said, “$50,000.”
The attorney said, “Is it true you received $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower, plus monthly payments and then you foreclosed and never invested one cent of legal tender or other depositors’ money to obtain the promissory note in the first place? Is it true that the borrower financed the whole transaction?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Are you telling me the borrower agreed to give the bank $50,000 actual cash value for free and that the banker returned the actual cash value back to the same person as a bank loan?”
The banker said, “I was not there when the borrower agreed to the loan.”
The attorney asked, “Do the standard FED publications show the bank receives actual cash value from the borrower for free and that the bank returns it back to the borrower as a bank loan?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney said, “Do you believe the bank does this without the borrower’s knowledge or written permission or authorization?”
The banker said, “No.”
The attorney asked, “To the best of your knowledge, is there written permission or authorization for the bank to transfer $50,000 of actual cash value from the borrower to the bank and for the bank to keep it for free?
The banker said, “No.”
Does this allow the bank to use this $50,000 actual cash value to fund the $50,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower, forcing the borrower to pay the bank $50,000 plus interest? ”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney said, “If the bank transferred $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower to the bank, in this part of the transaction, did the bank loan anything of value to the borrower?”
The banker said, “No.” He knew that one must first deposit something having actual cash value (cash, check, or promissory note) to fund a check.
The attorney asked, “Is it the bank policy to first transfer the actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the lender for the amount of the alleged loan?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Does the bank pay IRS tax on the actual cash value transferred from the alleged borrower to the bank?”
The banker answered, “No, because the actual cash value transferred shows up like a loan from the borrower to the bank, or a deposit which is the same thing, so it is not taxable.”
The attorney asked, “If a loan is forgiven, is it taxable?”
The banker agreed by saying, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Is it the bank policy to not return the actual cash value that they received from the alleged borrower unless it is returned as a loan from the bank to the alleged borrower?”
“Yes”, the banker replied.
The attorney said, “You never pay taxes on the actual cash value you receive from the alleged borrower and keep as the bank’s property?”
“No. No tax is paid.”, said the crying banker.
The attorney asked, “When the lender receives the actual cash value from the alleged borrower, does the bank claim that it then owns it and that it is the property of the lender, without the bank loaning or risking one cent of legal tender or other depositors’ money?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Are you telling me the bank policy is that the bank owns the promissory note (actual cash value) without loaning one cent of other depositors’ money or legal tender, that the alleged borrower is the one who provided the funds deposited to fund the bank loan check, and that the bank gets funds from the alleged borrower for free? Is the money then returned back to the same person as a loan which the alleged borrower repays when the bank never gave up any money to obtain the promissory note? Am I hearing this right? I give you the equivalent of $50,000, you return the funds back to me, and I have to repay you $50,000 plus interest? Do you think I am stupid?”
In a shaking voice the banker cried, saying, “All the banks are doing this. Congress allows this.”
The attorney quickly responded, “Does Congress allow the banks to breach written agreements, use false and misleading advertising, act without written permission, authorization, and without the alleged borrower’s knowledge to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank and then return it back as a loan?”
The banker said, “But the borrower got a check and the house.”
The attorney said, “Is it true that the actual cash value that was used to fund the bank loan check came directly from the borrower and that the bank received the funds from the alleged borrower for free?”
“It is true”, said the banker.
The attorney asked, “Is it the bank’s policy to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank and then to keep the funds as the bank’s property, which they loan out as bank loans?”
The banker, showing tears of regret that he had been caught, confessed, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Was it the bank’s intent to receive actual cash value from the borrower and return the value of the funds back to the borrower as a loan?”
The banker said, “Yes.” He knew he had to say yes because of the bank policy.
The attorney asked, “Do you believe that it was the borrower’s intent to fund his own bank loan check?”
The banker answered, “I was not there at the time and I cannot know what went through the borrower’s mind.”
The attorney asked, “If a lender loaned a borrower $10,000 and the borrower refused to repay the money, do you believe the lender is damaged?”
The banker thought. If he said no, it would imply that the borrower does not have to repay. If he said yes, it would imply that the borrower is damaged for the loan to the bank of which the bank never repaid. The banker answered, “If a loan is not repaid, the lender is damaged.”
The attorney asked, “Is it the bank policy to take actual cash value from the borrower, use it to fund the bank loan check, and never return the actual cash value to the borrower?”
The banker said, “The bank returns the funds.”
The attorney asked, “Was the actual cash value the bank received from the alleged borrower returned as a return of the money the bank took or was it returned as a bank loan to the borrower?”
The banker said, “As a loan.”
The attorney asked, “How did the bank get the borrower’s money for free?”
The banker said, “That is how it works.”

42 Responses

  1. Friday 29 May 2010


    Who left you in charge of determining what appears on this site, and you are out of line for chastizing Mr Garfield. If this information is a diversion, and it is, then move on to what interests you.

    After casting aspersions, you then launch into a furthering of the diversion with your own slant. Larry Becrafty as a source? Hyprocrite.

    When you point the finger of shame at someone, remember, three are pointing right back to you.

  2. Shame on you Neil.

    This is a horrible diversion from the otherwise great information on this site. Neil, how could you allow this distracting nonsense on here?

    Just a month ago, you were emphatic that a PROMISSORY NOTE IS NOT AN OBLIGATION – IT IS ONLY EVIDENCE OF AN OBLIGATION. The real obligation is the underlying commitment of the borrower to pay back the money according to the terms of the promissory note, in exchange, of course, for receiving the bank check that funds the purchase of the home with real money that the home seller will receive.

    You’ve done horrible harm to they readers of this site sending them down this rabbit hole. Shame on you.

    There is real fraud being committed against people and they need help. This post actually further harms them by wasting their time. Readers beware of this crap. Stay away from all Paranoid Conspiracy Theorists or “Freeman” guys.

    Readers, if you find yourself getting consumed by freaked out by ever-expanding conspiracy thoughts, read Becraft:


    I am not saying there are no conspiracies. What I am saying is that there are indeed conspiracies, but even more so, there are tens of thousands of bi-polar paranoid-delusional folks out there not taking their medicine. Most of these people are manic, and some are super-intelligent writers who can convince you of some bizarre stuff which is utter nonsense.

    The true conspiracy we should be focused on here is the rip off of borrowers and investors by the wall street guys who used obfuscation of the details of securitization to blow up the bubble collecting enormous fees, and most of all, credit Default Swaps. Stay focused. There are some good people in banking and some good banks, especially the smaller regional banks who don’t have their own lobbyists.

  3. The focus should be on the real problem which is the Federal Reserve Bank. They say history repeats itself and the current financial crisis is no exception. Here are a few quotes from Congressman McFadden on the Federal Reserve Corporation
    Remarks in Congress, 1934 AN ASTOUNDING EXPOSURE:

    Thieves Go Scot Free
    “Are you going to let these thieves get off scot free? Is there one law for the looter who drives up to the door of the United States Treasury in his limousine and another for the United States Veterans who are sleeping on the floor of a dilapidated house on the outskirts of Washington?

    “The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad is here asking for a large loan from the people, and the wage earners and the taxpayers of these United States. It is begging for a handout from the Government. It is standing, cap in hand, at the door of the R.F.C. where all the jackals have gathered to the feast. It is asking for money that was raised from the people by taxation and wants this money of the poor for the benefit of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., the German International Bankers.

    “Is there one law for the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and another for the hungry veterans it threw off its freight cars the other day? Is there one law for sleek and prosperous swindlers who call themselves bankers and another law for the soldiers who defended the flag? “The R.F.C. is taking over these worthless securities from the Investment Trusts with United States Treasury money at the expense of the American taxpayer and the wage earner.

    “It will take twenty years to redeem our Government. Twenty years of penal servitude to pay off the gambling debts of the traitorous Fed and to vast flood of American wages and savings, bank deposits, and the United States Government credit which the Fed exported out of this country to their foreign principals.

    “Mr. Chairman, last December, I introduced a resolution here asking for an examination and an audit of the Fed and all related matters. If the House sees fit to make such an investigation, the people of these United States will obtain information of great value. This is a Government of the people, by the people, for the people. Consequently, nothing should be concealed from the people. The man who deceives the people is a traitor to these United States.

    “The man who knows or suspects that a crime has been committed and who conceals and covers up that crime is an accessory to it. Mr. Speaker, it is a monstrous thing for this great nation of people to have its destinies presided over by a traitorous government board acting in secret concert with international usurers.

    “Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers- but the truth is- the Fed has usurped the Government. It controls everything here and it controls all of our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will.

    “No man and no body of men is more entrenched in power than the arrogant credit monopoly which operated the Fed. What National Government has permitted the Fed to steal from the people should now be restored to the people. The people have a valid claim against the Fed. If that claim is enforced the Americans will not need to stand in the bread line, or to suffer and die of starvation in the streets. Women will be saved, families will be kept together, and American children will not be dispersed and abandoned.

  4. Regarding the so called Jerome Daily Credit River case cited as some sort of authority which it is not and never has been or will be.

    I had investigated it a while back and have concluded that it has and had no authority or relevance at all because the case was heard in the justice of the peace court which had no jurisdiction. The Justice of the Peace wasn’t even an attorney let alone a judge. It appears that they served the Bank and held the proceeding without any legal authority to do so. It is the same as the current California municipal court which hears unlawful detainers but can not hear cases involving other issues such as foreclosures, etc. The judge hearing the case, a magistrate judge is not necessarily an attorney and usually has the title of Commissioner. Anyways, here is the Order from the Minnesota Supreme Court on this case.

    In Re Jerome Daly
    No. 42174
    Supreme Court of Minnesota
    284 Minn. 567; 171 N.W.2d 818; 1969 Minn. LEXIS 1102

    September 5, 1969

    PRIOR HISTORY: Order to show cause why Jerome Daly should not be held in constructive contempt of this court. Adjudged guilty of contempt, suspended from practice of law, and investigation ordered.

    Contempt — constructive contempt — attorney advising justice of peace to disregard order of supreme court.

    COUNSEL: Faegre & Benson, Peter Kitchak, and Gordon G. Busdicker, for relator.

    Jerome Daly, pro se, for respondent.


    On July 11, 1969, Mr. Justice C. Donald Peterson, acting for the Minnesota Supreme Court, directed Martin V. Mahoney, justice of the peace of Credit River Township, Scott County, Minnesota, and Jerome Daly, counsel for plaintiff in an action brought by one Leo Zurn against one Roger D. Derrick and the Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis, to show cause why they should not be permanently restrained from further proceedings in the justice court. In addition, Justice Peterson ordered a stay of all further proceedings before the justice of the peace pending final determination of the questions raised by Northwestern National Bank’s petition for writ of prohibition.

    Although the stay order of Justice Peterson was served on the justice of the peace and Mr. Daly on July 11, 1969, they intentionally and deliberately disregarded it in this way: On July 14, 1969, the justice of the peace, upon motion of Mr. Daly, entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order for judgment in favor of Zurn. In response to our order of August 12, 1969, directing the justice of the peace and Mr. Daly to show cause why they should not be held in constructive contempt of the Supreme Court of Minnesota for this conduct, Mr. Daly appeared personally in his own behalf before this court on August 21. He advised the court that he had been authorized to represent the justice of the peace in the proceedings. After noting that he was making a special appearance, Mr. Daly, an attorney at law admitted to practice in this state, acknowledged that both he and the justice of the peace intentionally violated the order of Justice Peterson because in their opinion neither this court nor Justice Peterson had jurisdiction to issue it.

    Although the death of the justice of the peace on August 22, 1969, has rendered the proceedings as against him moot, it is our judgment that the conduct of Jerome Daly was contumacious. It is the order of this court that he be temporarily suspended from the practice of law in the courts of this state effective October 1, 1969.

    We reserve jurisdiction of this matter to permit further proceedings, the object of which will be to determine whether this contumacious conduct of Jerome Daly is or is not an isolated instance of impropriety. Final determination of the disciplinary measures to be invoked will be made after such hearing has been conducted. Reasonable notice of any charges of misconduct and a full opportunity to be heard shall be afforded in these contemplated hearings.

    The rationale of our determination is as follows:

    (1) The Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota by the terms of our Constitution has power to issue writs of prohibition restraining a court of limited jurisdiction from exceeding its power. Minn. Const. art. 6, § 2, provides that the Supreme Court “shall have original jurisdiction in such remedial cases as may be prescribed by law.” By the terms of Minn. St. 480.04, the legislature has provided:

    “The court shall have power to issue to all courts of inferior jurisdiction and to all corporations and individuals, writs of error, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and all other writs and processes, whether especially provided for by statute or not, that are necessary to the execution of the laws and the furtherance of justice. It shall be always open for the issuance and return of such writs and processes and for the hearing and determination of all matters involved therein and for the entry in its minutes of such orders as may from time to time be necessary to carry out the power and authority conferred upon it by law, subject to such regulations as it may prescribe. Any justice of the court, either in vacation or in term, may order the writ or process to issue and prescribe as to its service and return.”

    (2) In Minnesota, the justice of the peace court is a court of inferior jurisdiction. Since the constitutional amendment of the judicial article in 1956 justice of the peace courts exist in this state only to the extent permitted by the legislature. Minn. Const. art. 6, §§ 1, 8, and Schedule. The legislature has fixed narrow limits to the jurisdiction which may be exercised by justices of the peace in this state. (Minn. St. 530.01, 530.05, 530.06, 531.03, 531.04, 532.37.) Acts in excess thereof by such justices of the peace are a nullity and subject to control by a writ of prohibition. Smith v. Tuman, 262 Minn. 149, 114 N.W. (2d) 73. For a definition of the term “inferior courts” see 21 C.J.S., Courts, § 7, p. 21.

    (3) The power to prohibit an improper exercise of jurisdiction embraces the power to issue ex parte an order designed to maintain the status quo pending a hearing upon an application for a writ of prohibition. See, Minn. St. 480.04. In the case of In re Lord, 255 Minn. 370, 378, 97 N.W. (2d) 287, 292, under similar circumstances, we stated that —
    “* * * this court had full authority to issue a preliminary order to show cause why such peremptory writ should not issue, and, in order to maintain the status quo until both sides of the controversy could be heard, to issue a restraining order to prevent any further action from being taken, either affirmatively or by inaction such as we have here.” See, also, 21 C.J.S., Courts, § 88, p. 136, [***6] and cases cited in note 13.

    (4) The order executed by Justice Peterson, acting in the name of this court, was a proper exercise of the court’s authority. Any justice of the supreme court, either in vacation or in term, may execute orders in behalf of the court pursuant to § 480.04. See, 48 C.J.S., Judges, § 48, and particularly cases cited in note 94; 30A Am. Jur., Judges, § 35.

    We find no essential requirement that such orders be issued by or through the office of the clerk of this court. To impose such a requirement would unnecessarily curtail the capacity of this court to respond in emergency situations. It would be unreasonable to make the per-formance of a clerical act a necessary condition to the exercise of judicial authority which must be asserted promptly to be effective. The signature of a justice of this court is adequate assurance of the authenticity of any order to which such signature is affixed.

    Although the verification of statements of fact sub-mitted to this court in ex parte matters is to be preferred, there is no jurisdictional requirement that a petition for temporary relief or for a writ of prohibition be verified. See, Dean v. First Nat.Bank, 217 Ore. 340, 341 P. (2d) 512; 73 C.J.S., Prohibition, § 26. In the matter before us it was evident from an examination of the summons and complaint in the proceedings sought to be restrained that Justice of the Peace Mahoney was undertaking to act in a matter with respect to which he had no jurisdiction. The representation of an attorney at law authorized to practice before this court that a copy of this summons and complaint attached to the petition seeking the writ of prohibition was a true and correct copy of the process served on his client formed in itself an adequate factual basis for the issuance of the temporary order directed to Justice of the Peace Mahoney and Jerome Daly.

    (5) The refusal of the justice of the peace to respect the July 11 order of this court was not justified. The justice of the peace would be bound to obey our intermediary order regardless of whether the actions restrained by our order were in excess of his jurisdiction. In re Lord, supra. Apart from this principle, it is clear that the proceedings restrained were beyond the limits of the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace in a number of respects, including these:

    (a) The summons, being returnable at 7 p.m. rather than between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. as specified by Minn. St. 531.03, was a nullity.
    (b) The summons did not contain a statement of the amount claimed by plaintiff as required by § 531.03.
    (c) Contrary to the provisions of § 531.04, the summons was personally served upon Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis in the city of Minneapolis, a city having a population in excess of 200,000.
    (d) This service was performed outside of the county of issuance, Scott County, in violation of the provision of § 531.04 that such service must satisfy the requirements of Minn. St. 532.29. One of the requirements of Minn. St. 532.29 is a continuance of proceedings for a period not exceeding 20 days, and no such continuance was provided in this case.
    (e) The amount in controversy exceeded the $ 100 jurisdictional limitation of the justice of the peace courts under § 530.05.
    (f) The relief sought, a declaratory judgment, was not within the granted powers of a justice of the peace. See, § 530.05. It has been the law ever since the 1861 case of Fowler v. Atkinson, 6 Minn. 350 (503), that a justice of the peace has no jurisdiction over equitable proceedings. See, Smith v. Tuman, supra.

    (6) We are satisfied from the record that the justice of the peace acted upon the advice and at the instance of attorney Jerome Daly. Mr. Mahoney was not admitted to practice as a lawyer. An attorney who intentionally and deliberately advises and encourages a justice of the peace or any other person to disregard an order of the Minnesota Supreme Court is guilty of contempt. See, Minn. St. 588.01, subd. 3(1, 2, 3, 7); In re Lord, supra; State v. Leftwich, 41 Minn. 42, 42 N.W. 598; In re Green, 172 Ohio St. 269, 175 N.E. (2d) 59. The fact that such advice is prompted by fanciful notions that justice of the peace courts have a constitutional status giving them immunity from the jurisdiction of the supreme court of this state cannot excuse or justify this conduct. This is especially the case in the present situation where the jurisdiction of this court to prohibit acts beyond the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace was clearly delineated by our decision in Smith v. Tuman, supra, published in 1962. See, also, State ex rel. Meister v. Stanway, 174 Minn. 608, 219 N.W. 452.

    (7) The supreme court has inherent power to discipline an attorney guilty of contempt. In re Contempt of Cary, 165 Minn. 203, 206 N.W. 402. In exercising this authority no attempt is made to impose the sanctions of the criminal law. A principal purpose of the exercise of disciplinary authority is to assure respect for the orders of this court by attorneys, who, as much as judges, are responsible for the orderly administration of justice in this state. In disciplinary proceedings the formal requisites of criminal procedure, including the right to a jury trial, have no application. In re Disbarment of Williams, 221 Minn. 554, 23 N.W. (2d) 4; In re Application for Discipline of Rerat, 232 Minn. 1, 44 N.W. (2d) 273; In re Application for Discipline of Joyce, 242 Minn. 427, 65 N.W. (2d) 581, certiorari denied sub nom. Joyce v. Dell, 348 U.S. 883, 75 S. Ct. 124, 99 L. ed. 694; In re Discipline of Tracy, 197 Minn. 35, 266 N.W. 88, 267 N.W. 142.

    Jerome Daly is adjudged to be guilty of contempt of this court. We are not prepared to determine with finality at this time the appropriate form of discipline to be prescribed. Final resolution of the matter must depend on whether the acts of this attorney are a part of a persistent and continuing effort to defy the authority of the courts and in part on whether there is any disposition to amend the contumacious behavior demonstrated.

    The Rules of the Supreme Court for Discipline and Reinstatement of Attorneys, adopted November 14, 1961 (260 Minn. x), which prescribe the procedure to be followed in cases where unproved complaints involving alleged unprofessional conduct are leveled against an attorney, was not intended to apply to situations where an attorney has been found in contempt of this court and an inquiry is needed to aid us in determining the kind of discipline to be imposed. To meet the problem posed by this case, we herewith refer further proceedings in this matter to the Honorable E. R. Selnes, Judge of the District Court of the State of Minnesota, who will act as a referee of the Minnesota Supreme Court in order to consider such evidence as may be presented to him bearing on the fitness and competence of Jerome Daly to serve as a practicing attorney in the courts of this state. The State Board of Law Examiners (see, In re Disbarment of McDonald, 204 Minn. 61, 282 N.W. 677, 284 N.W. 888) is hereby assigned the duty and responsibility of conducting a thorough investigation of the fitness and competency of Jerome Daly to continue as a member of the bar of this state. So far as applicable, proceedings shall be in conformity with the rules of this court promulgated November 14, 1961. Due notice of such charges of unfitness and incompetence as may be warranted by the evidence secured, together with due and proper notice of the time and place of such hearings as may be held with respect to such charges as may be filed, shall be afforded the said Jerome Daly. The Practice of Law Committee of the Minnesota State Bar Association is authorized to intervene and become a party to these proceedings if it so elects. Upon the evidence presented and received, together with such evidence as may be presented by the said Jerome Daly in his own behalf, the Honorable E. R. Selnes in his capacity as a referee of this court shall make findings of fact and conclusions and recommendations for disposition of this matter as shall be justified by the evidence. Such determination shall be conclusive subject to the right of any party aggrieved to secure a review of the referee’s determination in the manner outlined in said rules of November 14, 1961.

    Because of the deliberate and aggravated nature of the contumacious conduct on the part of the said Jerome Daly and his failure or refusal to present any reasonable justification for his effort to frustrate the processes of the Minnesota Supreme Court, his privilege to practice law in the courts of this state is suspended effective October 1, 1969; provided, however, that this court will consider such application as the said Jerome Daly may make prior to October 1, 1969, for such limited exceptions to this order of temporary suspension as may be proved necessary in order to protect the interests of clients now represented by the said Jerome Daly and involved in litigation pending in the courts of this state.

    This matter is herewith referred to the Honorable E. R. Selnes, designated as referee herein, for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, which proceedings shall be entitled “In re Jerome Daly.”

  5. First of all, I would like to express my displeasure with Neil for posting this on his otherwise wise and insightful blog. All this post will do is take people down the wrong path.

    The scenario described in this post is not accurate and the responses prove that point. It is true that the Federal Reserve creates money out of thin air and is a private company, but that does not give the local bank with the right to create money out of thin air as well. The banks get the money from the Federal Reserve Bank and do pay an interest to the Fed for those funds. In other words, the Federal Reserve creates the money from your note not the local banker.

    Regulation A
    Authority: 12 U.S.C. 248(i)-(j), 343 et seq., 347a, 347b, 347c, 348 et seq., 357, 374, 374a, and 461.

    § 201.3 Extensions of credit generally.

    (a) Advances to and discounts for a depository institution.

    (1) A Federal Reserve Bank may lend to a depository institution either by making an advance secured by acceptable collateral under § 201.4 of this part or by discounting certain types of paper. A Federal Reserve Bank generally extends credit by making an advance.

    (2) An advance to a depository institution must be secured to the satisfaction of the Federal Reserve Bank that makes the advance. Satisfactory collateral generally includes United States government and federal-agency securities, and, if of acceptable quality, mortgage notes covering one- to four-family residences, state and local government securities, and business, consumer, and other customer notes.

    (3) If a Federal Reserve Bank concludes that a discount would meet the needs of a depository institution or an institution described in section 13A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 349) more effectively, the Reserve Bank may discount any paper indorsed by the institution, provided the paper meets the requirements specified in the Federal Reserve Act.

  6. Still can’t get ahold of Brad keiser and have no idea what the status is of my QWR that he did for me!!!!

  7. Thanks Abby for the link to the article. It was very illuminating. It leads me to believe that there may not be any gold in Fort Knox or anywhere else, for that matter. Thus, as Edge says, fiat is fiat, and if it’s not backed by gold or silver or anything else, it is effective worthless. Paper money has to be backed by something, some tangible asset otherwise it’s just fancy paper.

    If there is no gold in the store house…then what? What real assets does the government have? Our land and our energy supplies, our citizens who make things and trade things…I can’t think of any thing else at the moment.

    I don’t know. Do we go back to trading with chickens? At least chickens give you eggs and meat. Sheep? Goats? It’s not like I can pull up to the Farmers Market and trade eggs for strawberries but it just might come to that. What a mess. I wonder how many chickens I can get into my car….

  8. Fort Knox, Fort Hocks or Fort Shocks – Three United States Gold Scenarios

    A good read!! By Stewart Dougherty (Harvard MBA & Fellow)


  9. Monday 24 May 2010


    Here is the short version. In 1933, FDR, a Socialist, closed the banks. What is not known by most was the closing was due to the US being forced into bankruptcy, and the Fed took over the banking system.

    Fiat is fiat. There is no backing. Fed Res Notes are commercial debt instruments, debt the US owes to the Fed, owned by the Iluminati. What is the backing behind all the debt that keeps the Fed issuing fiat?

    All US workers. Every citizen is a 14th Amendment citizen, which means a federal citizen, a classification that did not exist prior to the 14th Amendment. Every birth certificate is used as collateral…in other words, each “citizen” is expected to earn X amount of dollars and pay taxes to pay off the debt.

    Few people have the slightest inkling of what the Federal government has done to this country. It was sold out to the owners of the Fed Reserve.

    I am not going to try and defend what was just said, but it is true and can be researched and proven. One has to do their own due diligence.

  10. I have a thought on all this and please correct me if I am way off base here. In 1933, FDR confiscated the citizens gold. As citizens we could no longer trade in our Federal Reserve notes for gold. But, at that time, foreign governments could. Then, in 1971 President Nixon took everybody off the gold standard…including foreign governments.

    Thus, our paper money isn’t backed by anything tangible. Assuming that’s true, we all played along with this as long as everything was going well. It worked for long time. But now things have changed. Now, the US government is in the red. Deeply in the red and they owe everybody especially China. Now what? If your paper money isn’t backed by gold or silver or anything tangible then what?

    Well, the only thing I can think of that is as precious as gold is…land. In order to make the paper money have some value it’s got to be backed by something tangible, an asset of some kind that has some real value. So, the only things I can think of that are as valuable would be oil and land. Both are finite resources, apparently non-renewable, and everybody can get their head around both.

    Ergo, all these wars we are in are over controlling the oil. So, now we have petro-dollars. That fiat money has value if it’s backed by oil. Which leads me to the other thing…land. Do you think that maybe the confiscation of homes may have something to do with obtaining the land? If your fiat money is now backed by oil and land, do you really need gold?

    It might go a long way to explain why we are in the mess we are in. There isn’t enough gold in the world to back all the money that’s floating around. But, if it’s backed by land and oil, well….we’ve got a whole new ball game, no?

    Just a thought.

  11. Monday 24 May 2010

    A major score for the Equitable One!!! You are the first to come up with the only legal definition of a dollar in the US today. The Coinage Act of 1792 has never been overturned…ignored by the corporate federal UNITED STATES, but never overturned.

    A dollar is not the noun most everyone assumes it to be, but it is a measure, measuring the silver content, just like a gallon is a measure of something, like water, but a gallon can never be what it is that it measures. The same is true of a dollar, it can never be what it measures, although the majority of people do not even know these facts.

    There is a reason why the corporate federal UNITED STATES does not make it easy to know this information. It would lead to discovering who is really behind the curtain.

    The entire corporate federal government, pursposefully naming its corporation the UNITED STATES, knowing few people would recognize the similarity to the Constitutional Republic, known as the United States Of America.

    Those who are unaware are unaware og\f being unaware.

    The Credit River decision. Forget it. It was overturned and cannot be cited in any court of law. De3al with what is, and not what “seems” to be a silver bullet.
    The only silver bullet one can have is truth and knowledge.

    Great job, Equitable One!!!

  12. The Mint and Coinage Act of 1792 defined a dollar as 371.25 grains of pure silver.

    Article 1, sect. 10 of the US Constitution states: No State shall…make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts…

    Credit River v Daley was mentioned previously. I have no knowledge of any other case being argued and decided similarly.

    I don’t consider any of the “money” related arguments to be merely specious. But I also don’t believe anyone currently sitting on any bench will even entertain suits with those as either the primary attack, or defense.

  13. I would also like to point out and answer the obvious question of “why the holder of the note is important” and how why you will probably never see a copy of a promisorry note produced in court(or why it’s illegal to reproduce it). BECAUSE IT’S COUNTERFEIT

  14. Anyone else think the testimony of the banker is reminescent of “Who’s on First”?

  15. Diane Barker & Nick are just “barking” because they know it’s true and when it gets exposed they will no longer be able to live off of all the hard working americans in this country. Why else would these 2 geniuses bust out of nowhere in an attempt to discredit the post after never having posted before, but having obviously been frequent readers. Vapor money theory isn’t the same thing as creating money out of thin air(actually from the homeowner’s “credit”) and then charging interest on it, ever here about the Credit River descision in First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly? read case here> http://www.scribd.com/doc/31817208 jury ruled in favor of homeowner, the justice in that case also declared the FED act unconstitutional and was merdered 6 months after ruling on it, see> http://educationcenter2000.com/legal/credit_river_decision.htm for more info & statements of shock by an associate justice after hearing the banker’s testimony. I would also like to add that I posted this a while ago.

    I’m pretty sure the depo might have been from Henderson v. Merscorp where R. K. Arnold of MERS took the witness stand see transcript here> http://www.scribd.com/doc/31849564/MERS-Depo I haven’t read it all yet and will post a text reachable version later

  16. Monday 24 May 2010

    To where does this all end? The new USA, the Unionization of Soviet States. It is all but a fait accompli.

    It is always about following the money. Meyer Amshel Rothchild made the most revealing and simple explanation of HOW this has occurred: “Give me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes the laws.” We have had a puppet givernment for well over 80 years. This has not happened over night.

    Ten years ago, one hardly ever heard about a central bank in this country. Now, it is all one hears. Ten years ago, one hardly ever heard about the Federal government being the “solution” for everything. The power of the State…the reliance upon the goverment to solve everything…the takeover of private enterprise by the government, a form of fascism…these are all symptoms of the path this country has been on since the NWO, [New World Order], or Illuminati, take your pick, has been directing their unerring path since the 1850s.

    It is pretty much done. This country is a shell of what it used to be, a Constitutional Republic, never taught in a government-sponsored educational system. Instead, it has been replaced by a federal corporate behemoth, called THE UNITED STATES. There is an interlocking series of events that have led to where this country is today. It is not just a segmented aspect of what has happened to money, but what has happened over the past century. I digress.

    Yes, inflation reflects the forces of supply and demand, but it remains a function of seniorage, as already explained. There is more “money” chasing supply as a result of debasing the currency,[seniorage], and the debasing adds more currency into the system. The central bank is one of a network of world-wide central banks, all issuing fiat, imaginary “currency,” debt, and taking over the world as collateral.

    The subject is too big, so incredibly complex, and all inter-related to give anything more than snapshots that may not seem unrelated, at least until one begins to put the pieces of the puzzle together.

    The deceit is beyond comprehension, and it is all a function of the gradual takeover of this hollow country by international forces. Anyone ever heard of the Bilderberg group?

  17. We transferred our funds to my husband’s credit union. It’s not as convenient as the larger banks with branches and ATMs all over but I’m happy we did it. I will NEVER trust another bank again.

  18. Ian,

    I agree with you–it’s nice to know all this, but what does it get us in the end? I think the only thing we as individuals can do is this: stop participating in the system as much as possible. That is to say, don’t use credit, for example. Those of us in foreclosure need to fight it tooth and nail. Pass this info on to as many people as we can. Stop paying credit cards. Strategically default on mortgages. Move your money and/or use banks as little as possible. Buy gold and silver. Help each other out. Start more foreclosure defense websites. Post neil’s stuff on facebook, our own blogs, in comment sections of news websites. Let the bankerrorists know that we are onto their game and we are not going to play it any more.

  19. While I am glad I have kept this debate going, I apologize that my memory isn’t what it used to be: I had the wrong dates and erroneous info about the gold standard being dropped. But the gist of it all was that it was all done with purpose of inflating the currency and enabling the banks’ power. So I am in agreement with most of everything posted here, the question remains, what to do? Where is this all headed? I don’t believe that the banks and our government have any warm fuzzy feelings about doing the right thing for tens of millions of honest, hard working American families who want to live their lives in peace and give their children a bright future. What is going on here is a veritable litany of horrors.

  20. edgetrader,
    Thanks for that info. Thanks for the support. Just wanted to clarify a couple things–yes, there was inflation before 1956, but my point was that from my research, inflation has only ever increased since 1956. And my understanding of the cause of inflation is that it is simply a function of supply and demand, i.e., the more “dollars” (whether paper or digital) there are in the system, the less each one is worth.

    The United States went off the gold standard in 1933, the year FDR confiscated Americans’ gold. Thereafter, foreign countries could redeem U.S. currency for gold, but U.S. citizens could not. That was the practice ended by Nixon in 1971, when he effectively cancelled Bretton Woods and “closed the gold window” to foreign countries.

    One last thing–I understand that promissory notes aren’t money in exactly the same sense that cash is money. But as you correctly point out, what we call “cash” is the Federal Reserve Note, which is debt, not money. So in a very real sense, money doesn’t even exist in this country–it’s all debt. But since a promissory note, like a check, is redeemable for money/cash, to say that a promissory note isn’t money (as the judge I mentioned did) is, in my mind, a distinction without a difference.

    But I also agree with you that the “vapor money” argument, while accurate, is not going to fly in court. I don’t plan to use it. But I think it is very important for more people to understand the essentially fraudulent nature of our monetary system, and such info is at the root of all we talk about here on Neil’s very valuable blog.

    I for one am very heartened to see that Neil reposted this from the comments, because I have always been a little disappointed that he didn’t seem to take some of his arguments to their logical conclusion, i.e., that our “money” is debt.

    Thanks, edgetrader…

  21. Sunday 23 May 2010


    The US went off the gold standard in 1971, when Nixon abdicated all gold backing in this country.

  22. Sunday 23 May 2010


    You have the right concept, but a few thoughts that are not well founded. Inflation results from one thing and one thing only, as history shows this to be true, and that is based on seniorage, the amount of a specie-backed coin that is not pure. If a silver coin has a 5%
    non-silver metal, used to make the coin more durable, the amount of inflation will be 5%.

    When specie backing is removed entirely, as did the Federal Reserve starting in the 1930s, inflation will reflect that removal, as well. Inflation has been steadily growing since the Fed took over the money supply, starting in 1913. The value of a dollar from the 1920s is about 1 or 2 cents, so inflation existed long before 1956.

    Whether a judge pronouced it or not, promissory notes are NOT money, just as a check is not money. You contradict yourself by saying that it is. A promissory note can be used to raise an asset equal to the “value” of the note itself. A check represents “money,” but it cannot be the “money” it represents. It is merely a claim against the issuing bank where an account holder maintains a checking account.

    You do not set yourself up to be subject to ridicule. What remains absent in all of the comments is an understanding of what is, or what is not, “money.”
    It is not what most all people presume it to be.

    Debt is the opposite of money. Federal Reserve Notes are commercial debt instruments, and by their very nature, cannot be money. What remains unfortunate is the extent to which people will defend a misconeption and cast aspersions on the reality of over that of which they remain ignorant.

    No one seems to be concerned over the deceptive use of the word “dollars” appearing on fiat Federal Reserve Notes. If the Fed admits their Notes are not “dollars,” and there is a legal definition of what is a dollar in this country, then why does the Fed persist in the deceit? The entire Federal Reserve system has been based upon deceit even in the way it was introduced into law on 23 December 1913.

    How much legislation do anyone think gets passed two days before Christmas, when many senators are home on vacation? And in 1913, senate menbers had to travel by horse or train, great distances to be home for the holidays.

    Congnitive dissonance, everyone.

    You, or anyone, can choose to argue the elusive “money” issue, especially trying to argue what most do not understand, but courts will not stand for it. I believe it was anonymous who rightly stated that one may have the best defense for his/her case, and still lose.

    Arguing what is or is not “money” will grease the skids for a sure loss. Do you want to be “right,” or do you want to be effective in results? That seems to be a more pertinent question. [“You” in the generic sense].

  23. zurenarrh- 1956 was the year the US went off the gold standard, I believe. This was brought about during the Bretton Woods Conference. When the dollar was pegged to gold, banks could only lend up to a percentage of their total deposits. This is why there was no inflation. Now there is so little gold relative to the global debt, that it really is vapor money. It is backed by nothing. (except of course taxpayers’ signatures,is that identity theft?) Just a bunch of zeros and decimal points flitting across a computer screen.

  24. Just because courts reject an argument doesn’t mean the argument is incorrect. For example, “separate but equal” was held to be the legal standard for a time, but then it was overturned.

    It’s the same way with the money issue. I looked at a couple cases that storm provided on another thread in which courts rejected the “vapor money” argument. But again, even multiple court’s rejection of the argument doesn’t mean it isn’t correct.

    The Federal Reserve admits that banks create money. They admit we have a fractional reserve system, meaning that banks can loan out 10x its deposits. This is why inflation has only ever increased since 1956. This is why the economic system has collapsed–because the money is fake and only creates unsustainable indebtedness.

    One of the cases storm mentioned quoted the judge as saying “promissory notes aren’t money.” Well, that certainly would be news to the loan originators who pre-sell them and/or sell them immediately upon receipt of them, because they can get money for the notes and not be left holding a hot potato of debt. Promissory notes ARE money even if they are not treated as such by courts.

    And if angelo or any other naysayers come here and try to argue with and/or make fun of me over this, so be it. Our monetary system is in fact based on nothing of inherent value and banks are allowed to create money out of assets we give them, thereby enslaving us in debt. There is no “real money” involved at all where a bank is concerned.

  25. As a Pro Se litigant I feel like I am learning a lot from this. If I apply what the cross examining attorney is doing here to my own defense, it gives me a model of how I should or could present my argument. In other words, the cross examining attorney is not “all over the place” with his questions. Even though there might be more than one issue as to why a judge should give his argument consideration, he is not trying to prove all of the issues at once. He has a theme here and appears to have very effectively kept to that theme or argument.

    In the end, that doesn’t guarantee a win and I know that. But, to someone like me who has never been involved in any kind of litigation, and has never been in a courtroom for that matter, I still find it helpful.

  26. Bob G:

    Like I said, few understand the “money” issue, and your response is exactly what the Fed and its controlling influences count on, ignorance and ease of use.

    The “money” to which you refer, actually a check, when a check is legally acknowledged as NOT money, but let us assume “money,” for it is all imaginary and goes against the Constitution, but why quibble over ease of use over loss of Constitutional issues?

    You should write a letter to the Fed Reserve and thank them for providing you a system of imaginary fraud, but totally acceptable because you can use it so conveniently, and best of all, it works?

    You might want to start with learning what congnitive dissonance is about, and maybe even learn what a dollar is, as opposed to what you imagine it to be. How hard can it be for one to know what its money is?

    This is a digression from the main interest, but so is the original post that has no place here. Unfortunately, what is said in print can be so easily miscontrued. What I respond to you is meant to be thought-provoking not a gauntlet dropped.

    The mortgage fraud is not the only fraud being waged against Americans, and this massive mortgage fraud could not have happened were it not for the most massive fraud of all, the Federal Reserve, a private corporation, gaining controll of our money and substituting their own, deftly accomplished over decades.

    Do not look to the judiciary for help, it is the Supreme Court that has been an enabler of all the fraud that goes on in this country, for over 150 years, not just recently.

    Back to the mortgage issues.

  27. This is more about thought provoking and providing simple understanding to the scheme.

  28. Very interesting indeed. While I agree with everyone else that this should not be anyone’s defense, it does serve a purpose. From this, I know to ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS. I know not to make statements but to ask the questions that will hopefully cause a judge to make the right decision.

    Yes, it is a hypothetical and not a blanket defense for all of us to use. But there is a lot I can learn from it.

  29. Edgetrader

    Money is what folks will accept as a store of value in exchange for goods and services. When u write a check, it is a negotiable instrument, a note if you will. When presented at the bank for payment, the bank debits your account and the Fed debits the bank’s account. The Fed then credits the payee bank, and the payee bank credits the payee’s account that is at the payee bank.

    Who cares if this is done in a paper book ledger with ink, or done electronically? Makes no difference. I know this is true because I tried it at the supermarket last week and it worked.

  30. Sunday 23 May 2010

    Few people understand the “money” issue. The presentation is anecdotal, and there ain’t a “banker” alive that would play this role on the stand in real life. It is best to leave it alone for it is rife with political consequences with which no court wants to deal. Leave well enough alone.

    As an example, relatively few can give a definition of what a dollar is. As a clue, it is NOT what is issued by the Federal Reserve. A “Federal Reserve Note” is not federal, there are no reserves, and it does not meet the legal requirements of what is a Note. ALL Federal Reserve Notes are pure fiat, nothing more.

    ALL Federal Reserve Notes are commercial debt instruments with elastic qualities. Does anyone ever wonder why the godless Fed Res would choose to include the phrase, “In God We Trust?” Such a soft touch that panders to American ignorance.

    Or how about using the word “dollars” on each instrument when the fiat issue is not a dollar, at all?
    It is called congitive dissonance.

    It is true that in order to fund a loan, a signature is required, to be sold as an asset in order to fund the loan or credit card purchase. All such “loans/credt card purchases” are created by computer blips. No actual “money” is ever involved. None!

    Focus on the other arguments that will stand the best chance of working…the assignment. THAT has teeth.

  31. I CAN’T BELIEVE A RESPECTABLE SITE SUCH AS THIS POSTS THIS NONSENSE. I THOUGHT MR. GARFIELD WAS AN ATTORNEY. And as an attorney, Mr. Garfield should now that the above post is known as a “vapor money theory.” The “vapor money theory” has been consistently rejected by the courts since the 1800s. Just do a westlaw or lexis search on vapor money theory. Again, I understand if a homeowner posts this, but if it makes its way past AN ATTORNEY, we have serious problems!

  32. You Know i cant help getting back to something Neil pointed out well over a year ago, that we borrowers are not sophistocated finacially, I know medcine, thats all i know, my life has been spent learning medcine, so my point is Neil said simply, “if you borrow a buck you understand that you pay it back with interest” most borroers understand that much that there is shared risk and thats the agreement, we trusted that was the agreement. I now learned different, very different and while securitization and derivatives, hedgeing ect are not in them selves illegal THE INTENTION at closing the loans was illegal in making the round peg fit into the square hole because it would only be there temporaily and default was a sure thing. well thats not a case of when you borrow a buck you pay it back with interest, thats where you pay it back by being enslaved in debt for the rest of your natural life! who on gods green earth would agree to that kind of risk …sharing….

  33. This is just how an attorney would take someone apart. This is what happens in a deposition or in testimony. The person is making it easy for you to see how it is done. The banker starts out by admitting that the borrower’s obligation is satisfied without knowing it. Read it twice folks, this how it is done.

  34. This may all be true, but so what? I think we already had this discussion under the comments in a blog post last week. Those that participated concluded that this line of argument is a prescription for utter failure and will destroy your credibility. It’s not going to help and we need to keep focused on exactly what IS going to help. This is a distraction. Another ring in this three ring circus. Let’s keep focusing on what will fly in court and not what doesn’t fly.

  35. this is a great article to back up the wisdom of Mr Garfield




  37. its just one concept

  38. I think this is baloney. This post damages all of the other credible information on this site.

  39. To Bob. G

    The problem is the bankster’s are never grilled under oath on a witness stand for the fraud they have perpetuated.

  40. i’m sorry, but in my opinion this is Alice in Wonderland stuff. Just do the debits and credits on the transaction. Real money was lent, a note was given, a house was purchased, a mortgage was recorded. Period.

    What judge in his right mind would allow such questioning? The bank’s atty would have objected and shut this down in short order.

    Guys, I’m of the opinion that this is sheer nonsense and destroys the homeowner’s credibility with the court. Use this logic at your own risk.

  41. Is this real testimony or a hypothetical what can be done if you get a sniveling bankster on the witness stand?

  42. Neil,

    I saw this line of reasoning a month ago … only one thing concerns me … the lack of OBJECTIONS from the other side, because you know you’re going to get them … everything from OBJECTING TO FORM and LEADING THE WITNESS to INTIMIDATING THE WITNESS to CONJECTURE to everything else in the kitchen sink.

    This is the reasoning that would work if you could memorize the entire script from start to finish and understand fully what these questions you were asking really mean. It’s bad enough it’s a fiat money system, but more importantly .. IT’S A FRACTIONALIZED FIAT MONEY SYSTEM ,,, wherein the banks are allowed to loan 10 times the amount of money in their asset portfolios, even up to the point in time where they are about to release a lien. It used to be common practice to hold a loan for 30 days or more after it’s paid in full so the “asset” continues to show up on the books so banks can loan on it. The ratios need to be cut back to 3 to 1 instead of 10 to 1 in order to rein in this system!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: