Could all mortgage contracts be void and foreclosures invalid?

The following article should probably be considered for educational or entertainment purposes only. It is rare to find such an informed judge working for the government that puts the interest of the individual above the financial interests of the banks and their credit and money creation system. Homeowners facing foreclosure should be absolutely aware of this case and the arguments, but they should be cautioned against taking any of these as actual legal advice.

I first came across the curious case of Jerome Daly through an article by Ellen Brown, author of the book Debt website. This is a 1968 Minnesota foreclosure case that has yet to be reversed, and the issues go straight to the heart of the sleight of hand on which the banking system is built. The case also presents an optimistic view of how people can regain the power to create money from private banks.

Jerome Daly was a Minnesota homeowner who stopped paying his mortgage. The lender, First National Bank of Montgomery, of course, sued the man for foreclosure. Daly presented his argument to a jury as to why he owed the bank nothing.

Essentially, he argued that the bank had not heeded Daly’s promise to repay the loan. The consideration is one of the requirements for a valid contract, and without it, a contract is void. Daly argued that the mortgage contract was void and did not need to be repaid because the bank had not actually given him money. The lender had created the money out of thin air in response to a promise to repay the loan.

This credit, Daly argued, was not real money that counted as consideration and therefore did not need to be repaid. Without valid consideration, the mortgage contract was null and void and nothing was owed to the bank. Surprisingly, the jury agreed with him and declared that the mortgage was not a valid contract.

The judge and a representative who testified on behalf of the bank also agreed with Daly’s argument, indeed. The president of the bank, Mr. Morgan, admitted that the money did not exist until Daly received the mortgage and the money was created out of thin air.

The judge wrote a supporting decision in the case that agreed with Daly, writing “Money and credit came into being when they created it. Mr. Morgan [the bank’s president] admitted that there was no United States law or statute giving it the right to do this. “Therefore, the loan of the money to Daly in the form of a mortgage was not a valid consideration. The bank did not even have the authority to create money from scratch according to any known law or statute.

This case has been suppressed much more than has been argued against, and it has not been overturned. What this means for homeowners facing foreclosure is that they may not even owe money to their bank, and the lender is trying to keep the home to pay off an illegal contract. This case is quite possibly a debt free jail card.

But that does not mean that local judges allow such rational arguments in their courts. Just because the mortgage contracts can be proven invalid and the loan system a scam does not mean that corrupt court systems allow the truth to be told about the equally corrupt banking system. Political power and money go hand in hand.

So it should come as no surprise that people who have used Daly’s arguments to protect themselves against foreclosure have not always been successful in finding a court to listen to them. Rubber-stamped foreclosure lawsuits generate good money for attorneys in the form of legal fees and for local county courts in the form of filing fees. (Of course, neither party seems to realize that the money they are helping to steal was created out of nothing, and they are selling other human beings to an illusion.)

Homeowners, as I mentioned earlier, should be aware of this argument, because it shows that the banking system is the scam that it is. Now that many more homeowners have received bad loans and are losing their homes because of them, will it depend more on the argument of a null mortgage contract and the unconstitutionality of the monetary system itself? That remains to be seen, but it is a compelling, rational, and very interesting argument that Daly made. Even more interesting is that the judge and jury agreed with him.

But, on the less interesting side there will always be the corrupt judges, lawyers and others who profit from the bank scam. As one of them said regarding this issue, “If I let you do that, you and everyone else, it would bring down the whole system … I can’t let you go behind the bench bar … Don’t go behind that one! curtain! “The whole system supports the banks and the government. Why should we expect them to help people defend themselves against illegal acts and contracts?