Primer briefing de la CIA a Obama

Barack Obama ha recibido hoy su primer briefing por parte de la CIA. ¿Le habrán mostrado esa grabación de la muerte de Kennedy desde un ángulo que nadie ha visto nunca como bromea Bill Hicks en el vídeo del anterior post?

Elecciones: ¿realmente importan?

El dinero es deuda

A continuación podéis ver las cinco partes del documental Money as Debt, que explica de una forma bastante sencilla el origen del dinero desde una perspectiva histórica y cómo se crea en nuestra economía actual, y por qué este sistema económico no es sostenible. Para referencias o demás información: http://www.moneyasdebt.net

"Nadie es más esclavo que el que se tiene por libre sin serlo". Goethe

Parte I:


Parte II:


Parte III:


Parte IV:


Parte V:

First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly

En 1968 Jerome Daly, un propietario del municipio de Credit River, Minnesota que había dejado de pagar la hipoteca que gravaba su casa, fue llevado a juicio por el banco para ejecutar el embargo de la vivienda. Daly, abogado, se defendió a sí mismo en un juicio que presidió el juez Martin V. Mahoney. El abogado del First National Bank of Montgomery solicitó el embargo basándose en el contrato de hipoteca que el banco y Daly habían firmado. Pero cuando le llegó a este su turno acusó al banco de haber creado el dinero del préstamo hipotecario de la nada, limitándose a efectuar una entrada en su libro contable por el valor de la hipoteca, lo cual el banco confirmó, explicando que es la práctica habitual entre las entidades bancarias. Un jurado formado por 12 personas falló a favor del demandado. El juez dictaminó que el hecho de que un banco conceda un préstamo hipotecario en base a dinero que no tiene realmente en su poder era anticonstitucional y declaró nulo el contrato de hipoteca, en una sentencia sin precedente, que desafortunadamente debido a las leyes del estado de Minnesota no sienta precedente para posteriores sentencias. Más abajo se reproduce el texto de la misma (en inglés).

Durante la misma época (entre 1967 y 1969) que este juicio tuvo lugar, Jerome Daly también actuó como abogado de otras personas que se negaban a pagar sus impuestos al gobierno alegando que el Estado conspiraba con la Reserva Federal y el sistema bancario para defraudar a los contribuyentes mediante la creación ilegal de dinero y de crédito, y que tanto la Reserva Federal como todo el sistema monetario estadounidense eran anticonstitucionales. Todas estas otras demandas fueron sobreseídas.
www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/CreditRiver/1969-06-11affidavitofTRM.pdf

Unas semanas después de la sentencia a favor de Daly, el First National Bank of Montgomery intentó apelarla, cosa que el juez Martin V. Mahoney desestimó por considerar que los billetes de 1 dólar que el banco había utilizado para pagar la tasa correspondiente no eran válidos al carecer de valor monetario real. El caso fue transferido a otro juez y tras meses de apelaciones por parte de Mahoney, y mientras este estaba juzgando un nuevo caso contra el mismo banco, apareció muerto en extrañas circunstancias durante un accidente de pesca. La versión oficial habló de alcoholismo crónico. Pero muchos afirman que fue envenenado.
www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/CreditRiver/1969-08-28counteraffidavitofTRM.pdf

Poco después el estado de Minnesota desposeyó a Jerome Daly de su licencia para ejercer de abogado.
www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/CreditRiver/1969ZurnvNorthwesternNationalBank.pdf

RE: First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly

IN THE JUSTICE COURTSTATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
TOWNSHIP OF CREDIT RIVER
JUSTICE MARTIN V. MAHONEY

First National Bank of Montgomery,
Plaintiff

vs

Jerome Daly,
Defendant

JUDGMENT AND DECREE

The above entitled action came on before the Court and a Jury of 12 on December 7, 1968 at 10:00 am. Plaintiff appeared by its President Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by its Counsel, R. Mellby. Defendant appeared on his own behalf.

A Jury of Talesmen were called, impaneled and sworn to try the issues in the Case. Lawrence V. Morgan was the only witness called for Plaintiff 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 of Lot 19 Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minn. Plaintiff claimed title to the Real Property in question by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8, 1964 which Plaintiff claimed was in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were started.

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 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. Plaintiff further claimed that Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived any right to complain about the Consideration and that the Defendant was estopped from doing so.

At 12:15 on December 7, 1968 the Jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendant.

Now therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of United States and the Constitution and the laws of the State of Minnesota not inconsistent therewith;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

1.That the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota according to the Plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office.

2.That because of failure of a lawful consideration the Note and Mortgage dated May 8, 1964 are null and void.

3.That the Sheriff's sale of the above described premises held on June26, 1967 is null and void, of no effect.

4.That the Plaintiff has no right title or interest in said premises or lien thereon as is above described.

5.That any provision in the Minnesota Constitution and any Minnesota Statute binding the jurisdiction of this Court is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and to the Bill of Rights of the Minnesota Constitution and is null and void and that this Court has jurisdiction to render complete Justice in this Cause.

The following memorandum and any supplementary memorandum made and filed by this Court in support of this Judgment is hereby made a part hereof by reference.

BY THE COURT

Dated December 9, 1968

Justice MARTIN V. MAHONEY
Credit River Township
Scott County, Minnesota

MEMORANDUM

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, 46N.W. 558.

The Jury found that there was no consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing. Even if Defendant could be charged with waiver or estoppel as a matter of Law this is no defense to the Plaintiff. The Law leaves wrong doers where it finds them. See sections 50, 51 and 52 of Am Jur 2nd "Actions" on page 584 - "no action will lie to recover on a claim based upon, or in any manner depending upon, a fraudulent, illegal, or immoral transaction or contract to which Plaintiff was a party."

Plaintiff'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.

Nothing in the Constitution of the United States limits the jurisdiction of this Court, which is one of original Jurisdiction with right of trial by Jury guaranteed. This is a Common Law action. Minnesota cannot limit or impair the power of this Court to render Complete Justice between the parties. Any provisions in the Constitution and laws of Minnesota which attempt to do so is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and void. No question as to the Jurisdiction of this Court was raised by either party at the trial. 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. Their Verdict could not reasonably been otherwise. Justice was rendered completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, freely and without purchase, conformable to the laws in this Court of December 7, 1968.

BY THE COURT

December 9, 1968

Justice Martin V. Mahoney
Credit River Township
Scott County, Minnesota.

Note: It has never been doubted that a Note given on a Consideration which is prohibited by law is void. It has been determined, independent of Acts of Congress, that sailing under the license of an enemy is illegal. The emission of Bills of Credit upon the books of these private Corporations for the purpose of private gain is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States and is unlawful. See Craig v. Mo. 4 Peters Reports 912. This Court can tread only that path which is marked out by duty.

M.V.M.