FTC Shuts Down "Debt Elimination Lite" Scammers

[Pantekhnikon]

....
Forget Robin Hood.... think instead of a lioness protecting her hard-won kill from Hyenas, and feeding herself and her cubs and the male head of her pride. The lioness does not consider moral equivalents or emotional blackmail. She just does what she has to do in order to survive.

But some of the "kill" was not hard won. It was borrowed. And attempting to rationalize not giving it back with the tired "no money lent" mythology is little more than moral relativism.

What, exactly, WAS borrowed?

Learned economists have contended that whatever it was, it did not exist prior to being "lent". How "hard won" was THAT???

The "kill" itself was not borrowed... it was purchased with legally counterfeited means. Then it was defended tooth and claw.

[Judge Roy Bean]

What, exactly, WAS borrowed?

The money that paid for the goods and services you obtained.

Learned economists have contended that whatever it was, it did not exist prior to being "lent". How "hard won" was THAT???

Which has no relevance at all. The entities that sold you goods and services were paid for those goods and services with LEGAL means - as in spendable legal tender - dollars, otherwise you would not have gotten them. The method or means of how their revenue was received and recorded is irrelevant. They were apparently satisfied with it and were confident enough in getting it to let you have whatever it was you obtained.

The "kill" itself was not borrowed... it was purchased with legally counterfeited means. Then it was defended tooth and claw.

Pure moral relativism. You obtained goods and services by having a legally-established financial institution pay for them. Legally, you borrowed from someone to pay someone else for things you obtained. The method or means of how the lender obtained the resources to make that payment to the people you obtained things from is also irrelevant.

Granted some of those entities are dangerous to do business with. Given the current "regulatory" climate, some will take advantage of people. That's why I recommend people not buy things on credit cards and do all their banking with a credit union. But there are legitimate means for dealing with the squaliformes. Getting away with obtaining things without paying for them as a result of a third-party's sloppy legal work may sit well with you but you're the one that has to live with it. Your attempt to justify it is pretty shallow.

[wserra]

It [the so-called "Credit River" case - wserra] has not been nullified

The Credit River Decision was nullified

Enough. Whatever Heidi says is a cross between ad hoc rationalization and stream of consciousness nonsense. When propositions "A" and "¬A" appear in her same post, it's time to move on.

[wserra]

Actually, Credit River WAS nullified by the Minnesota Supreme Court. If anyone wants the cites, I can get them.

IIRC, the case (for whatever reason) was never appealed, nor was it (for whatever reason) attacked collaterally. Thus it was never directly reversed or overruled. Subsequent decisions of the Minnesota appellate courts - decisions which involved other actions of Daly and Mahoney themselves - made it clear beyond peradventure that Mahoney's actions in the Credit River case not only were wrong, but far exceeded his jurisdiction as a lowly JP. And, of course, the fact - if it is such - that a jury made the findings makes no difference. If a jury orders someone shot at dawn for shoplifting, that doesn't make it the law (or mean that it will happen).

Lawdog, as lawyers this is obvious to you and me. It would also be clear enough to an intelligent layperson - perhaps after a short explanation - who wishes to understand it. Heidi has no wish to understand it, as such understanding would undermine her rationalization as to why it was OK for her to welsh on legitimate debts. Not to mention hurt book sales.

[Judge Roy Bean]

....Heidi has no wish to understand it, as such understanding would undermine her rationalization as to why it was OK for her to welsh on legitimate debts. Not to mention hurt book sales.

Without regard to the legitimacy of the debts Heidi ran up, the reliance on a quirky legal mythology to blend into something ordinary people might stumble on to allegedly help them with a financial dilemma is to say the least, disturbing.

If this kind of thing proliferated in serious medical issues the promoters would be faced with more dire consequences. As it is, financial disaster doesn't seem to have a medical equivalent that could reach back to touch the quack practitioner.

[notorial dissent]

When all is said and done, the plain fact of the matter is that Mahoney far and away exceeded any authority or jurisdiction he might have had, and in fact didn't have, then any rulings he made were void from the beginning.

He was a JP, had no authority to call a jury for anything, and certainly did not have the authority to take any of the steps he did or make any of the rulings he did. The fact that he was ordered to turn the original documents over to the superior court despite having previously refused to and ruled that the matter could not be appealed, should say a lot about the whole matter. That the Minn Supreme Court did declare it all a nullity should have been the end of it.

Heidi and her ilk don't want to believe that their silver bullet is an illusion, despite the fact that it is just that. But then intellectual honesty isn't exactly her forte anyway, so why should this be any difference.

[Pantekhnikon]

It [the so-called "Credit River" case - wserra] has not been nullified

The Credit River Decision was nullified

Enough. Whatever Heidi says is a cross between ad hoc rationalization and stream of consciousness nonsense. When propositions "A" and "¬A" appear in her same post, it's time to move on.

Now wasn't that a clever attempt at taking quotes out of context and hoping that our readers are too worn out by wading through your group obfuscations to look back up through this thread and find out what I actually said... and even better, to realize what I actually meant:

ME: "It has not been nullified, but it cannot be cited as authority in subsequent cases because it was never confirmed by a higher State Court of Appeal, either."

wserra: This conclusion indicates multiple misconceptions about the way the law works.
First and most important, by this argument any unappealed trial-level decision is good law.

ME: Absolutely not. "Law" is made by decisions which are upheld in higher courts. The Credit River Decision was nullified by the superior strategy of those in opposition to it.

Just in case anyone remains confused -- I said: "The Credit River Decision was nullified by the superior strategy of those in opposition to it." ... meaning that said 'nullification' was the result of legal technicalities and strategic maneuvering to stop Daly and Mahoney from participating in any further jury trials pertaining to this particular topic -- legalized counterfeiting; creating money out of thin air. Rather than any higher court ruling that the verdict was either correct or incorrect, Daly and Mahoney were squelched.

A higher court's ruling would have necessitated re-examining the Bank President who testified to the creation of loan funds via a bookkeeping entry. As it stands, that testimony has never been contradicted. I never said that it was "law" in the stare decisis sense... I said that it has never been contradicted. There is a difference.

Not only has that testimony never been contradicted, it has been echoed and corroborated by the likes of Murray N. Rothbard and Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Phd. ... learned men whose lectures are available on youtube, btw -- just search their names.

Attempting to vilify me is simply aiming at the easy target, like any amateur. Try taking on the targets that I've espoused and see how far you get.

All of this over-complicated controversy over the legal machinations following the Credit River Decision has remained a partially effective smoke screen. I say 'partially effective' because some people manage to hone in on the facts as testified to by a Bank President instead of whether or not a Justice of the Peace in a Common Law court can officially preside over a jury trial.

My research revealed that The Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court asked Bill Drexler to act as Associate Justice of the Peace because no qualified judge besides the neighborhood Justice of the Peace had been willing and able to sit on the bench for that case. The first two justices were disqualified by Affidavit of Prejudice -- the first by the Defendant; the second by the Plaintiff. A third refused to handle the case. That left Justice of the Peace Mahoney. Apparently the Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court not only allowed the case to proceed up front, but appointed Bill Drexler Associate Justice of the Peace in support of Mahoney.

Only after the jury returned their landmark verdict did the excrement impact the fan and various entities, legal and otherwise, scrambled to squelch, intimidate and silence the men responsible for it. Had the jury found otherwise, this case would have passed into obscurity. No one would have pressed the issue of whether or not a Justice of the Peace could preside.

Which reminds me of certain parties waiting until AFTER an adverse arbitration award is rendered to claim that the arbitration forum is somehow biased. Fortunately, Florida doesn't allow that... one has to assert such a claim BEFORE the award is made... otherwise it becomes a rather naked attempt to invalidate an adverse decision after the fact... just like Credit River.

[Pantekhnikon]

When all is said and done, the plain fact of the matter is that Mahoney far and away exceeded any authority or jurisdiction he might have had, and in fact didn't have, then any rulings he made were void from the beginning.

He was a JP, had no authority to call a jury for anything, and certainly did not have the authority to take any of the steps he did or make any of the rulings he did.

Why, then, did The Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court appoint Bill Drexler Associate Justice of the Peace to assist Justice of the Peace Mahoney in that trial?

The fact that he was ordered to turn the original documents over to the superior court despite having previously refused to and ruled that the matter could not be appealed...

You forgot to mention that the only reason an appeal was halted was because the Plaintiff refused to pay the $2.00 filing fee in hard currency. They insisted upon using Federal Reserve notes, which, due to the recent verdict, Mahoney refused to accept because he believed they were worthless.

Seems to me that coming up with two silver dollars, or four silver half-dollars, or eight quarters, or any combination of the above, should have been simple enough... especially when the Plaintiff supposedly wanted a higher court to review this decision. I wonder why the Plaintiff dug in its heels and refused to pay a mere $2.00 in hard currency... THAT is the only reason an appeal wasn't filed.


...should say a lot about the whole matter. That the Minn Supreme Court did declare it all a nullity should have been the end of it.

The Credit River Decision took place on December 7th, 1968.

The Minn Supreme Court stepped in when Daly attempted to represent another debtor against The Northwestern National Bank of Minn.

On July 11th, 1969, Justice C. Donald Peterson, acting for the Minn. Supreme Court, Ordered Daly and Mahoney to Show Cause why they should not be permanently restrained from further proceedings in the Justice Court.

Peterson did this pending final determination of questions raised by the Bank's petition for a Writ of Prohibition. It seems they preferred this avenue to that of tendering $2.00 in hard currency for an appeal of the Credit River Decision six months earlier.

The Supreme Court of Minn declared all decisions presided over by Justice of the Peace Mahoney AFTER August 15th, 1969 a nullity. NOTE: that was several months AFTER the Credit River Decision... and it was exactly 7 days prior to Mahoney's sudden death.

Heidi and her ilk ...


I'm happy to say that my "ilk" includes the likes of Murray N. Rothbard and Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr., Phd, and Dr. Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas and former Presidential hopeful.

...don't want to believe that their silver bullet is an illusion, despite the fact that it is just that.

IMO (and the opinion of others of my "ilk", mentioned above) you and your ilk are deluded.

What is your favorite flavor of Kool Aid? Sour Grape, I should imagine....

[Pantekhnikon]

... the reliance on a quirky legal mythology to blend into something ordinary people might stumble on to allegedly help them with a financial dilemma is to say the least, disturbing.

In what way have I touted a legal "mythology"? The Credit River Decision occurred in Dec. of 1968... regardless of later public opinion concerning it's veracity.... and I might add that no actual legal opinion has ever overturned the decision. It has simply never been upheld.

May I also remind you (again) that the Minn Sup. Court declared all proceedings presided over by Mahoney AFTER August 15th 1969 to be a nullity. The Credit River Decision occurred several months PRIOR.

As you are well aware, countless decisions are never appealed, and therefore never overturned OR upheld... that does not make the decisions themselves "mythological".

If this kind of thing proliferated in serious medical issues the promoters would be faced with more dire consequences.

If you actually read my book, you will see that I expose the DE promoters for exactly what they are -- just another variety of shark. I promote nothing. I do EXPOSE a number of things, however... and I also explain my ability to escape the Debt Trap.

As it is, financial disaster doesn't seem to have a medical equivalent that could reach back to touch the quack practitioner.

Nor, apparently, can legalized counterfeiting, inflation, and usury resulting in a population of debtors about to suffer bankruptcy... except, of course, according to the Fractional Reserve lenders' own "books". Otherwise they can just lobby Congress to soak the taxpayers.

Funny how the Fed refuses to share with the American public the identities of those lucky corporations receiving over $2 TRILLION IN TAXPAYER BAILOUT FUNDS recently.

Ha ha ha. Very funny, indeed. Is anybody laughing???

Wait... I think I hear a few chuckles emanating from the steam room at some luxury spa...

[Arthur Rubin]

In regard the appeal; even "Pantekhnikon" is correct that the "Court" demanded $2 for the appeal fee, doesn't the "legal tender" clause of the Constitution override any desire of the "Court" for "hard currency"?

Not that I'm saying his statements resemble the truth....

[Pantekhnikon]

....

Nope... credit unions are not authorized to create money via a fractional reserve lending process. They have to lend out a portion of their members' deposits.

Sure. They are nothing more than nitwit entities that can't borrow from or invest in other sources of capital.

Interesting attempt at sarcasm, there, judge... but what, exactly, does that have to do with the fact that Credit Unions are self-proclaimed co-ops which lend out their own members'/depositors' funds rather than practicing Fractional Reserve lending?

Don't tell me you threw out a Red Herring? Oh NOOOO !!! Not YOU !!!

Didn't you study that chart that Demosthenes posted here 4 years ago... the one which clearly demonstrated the creation of nine times as much "money" via fractional reserve lending?

The so-what light is now flashing. The creation is temporary.

"Temporary"? REALLY??? Does that mean it is immediately UN-created after it has been remitted?

Just exactly what do the banks DO with it all after the dutiful debtors remit it, then?

Do they shred it... or just make another bookkeeping entry to re-balance their books?

That's odd... I wonder why they bother to invest so much time, "money" and effort hiring attorneys, suing defaulting debtors, paying for arbitration at the arbitration forums of their choice, then. Hmmmmmm. Seems like rather a waste of time to sue for something that is simply going to disappear the minute you collect it....

Try again, judge. That Red Herring really stank.... LOL

And as for trying to blame peoples' displeasure about inflation and money creation on anti-semitism... that's like OJ playing the Race Card. Besides... since when was J.P. Morgan jewish? Morgan is a Scottish surname... and we scots are a bit tight-fisted with money ourselves.[/b]

"People's displeasure?" It's not the vast majority of people who are displeased - it's the noisy minority of nutcases who love to tie things back to myths that just happen to coincide with their racism and bigotry. And you know Morgan is not the target subject of the kook squad.

More ad hominem fallacies...
Try contradicting Rothbard, Paul, and Vieira some time. Ron Paul and Dr. Edwin Vieira are still alive and well and quite able to debate the likes of you. You can find their speeches regarding the Fed on youtube. Just search their names along with the words: "Federal Reserve" and you'll find plenty of threads to occupy your doubting minds.

The vast majority of people do not understand that they have been duped and fleeced for decades by a monetary system too convoluted for the average consumer to comprehend... and a Congress too much in its pocket to stand up to it.

Somehow, though... after this very unpopular bailout and the rash of recent news stories about the Fed refusing to reveal the corporations to which the latest $2 Trillion have been given, I think the public is waking up.

[Pantekhnikon]

In regard the appeal; even "Pantekhnikon" is correct that the "Court" demanded $2 for the appeal fee, doesn't the "legal tender" clause of the Constitution override any desire of the "Court" for "hard currency"?

Not that I'm saying his statements resemble the truth....

Perhaps so... but doesn't it strike you as odd that the Plaintiff would dig in its heels and refuse to remit a mere $2.00 in coinage to get the appeal underway? Any rational plaintiff would just laugh, reach into their pants pockets and find the change.

That's what makes me wonder... the fact that an actual appeal would have occasioned a re-examination of that Bank President and a legal record of his testimony....

[Prof]

Heidi is at it again and ordinarily I would not participate, but I must note that Credit Unions participate in the fractional reserve banking process and are not required to maintain 100% of depositors demand deposits in reserve. In fact, all commercial bankings systems practice some form of fractional reserve banking, except the nationalized (state-owned) banking institutions in some Islamic countries.

Credit Unions, in fact, have no shareholders who are not also members and are "mutual" insitutions, meaining that all profits go to members in the form of reduced interest rates, etc. Since the only capital in a credit union is the member deposits, in order to loan one thin dime, the credit union would have to practice fractional reserve banking. Since credit unions can be observed to make loans, and since none really has any separate shareholder capital as such, they must be lending some fraction of their deposits and not holding 100% in reserve.

[wserra]

It [the so-called "Credit River" case - wserra] has not been nullified

The Credit River Decision was nullified

Enough. Whatever Heidi says is a cross between ad hoc rationalization and stream of consciousness nonsense. When propositions "A" and "¬A" appear in her same post, it's time to move on.

Now wasn't that a clever attempt at taking quotes out of context and hoping that our readers are too worn out by wading through your group obfuscations to look back up through this thread and find out what I actually said... and even better, to realize what I actually meant:

Snip spin, spin, spin, spinnity-spin. Ignore for the moment Heidi's "Forget what I said, here's what I meant" apologia. No case can be a "nullity" in one context and a valid basis for argument in another. It's either a nullity or it's not. Heidi would have it both ways, and can't.

As I posted earlier, it appears that the specific decision was never appealed, and (as Heidi correctly says) that the decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court nullifying the Mahoney/Daly decisions was effective some months post-Credit River. I posted all this a few years ago, when Heidi first appeared here. That brings us to the point I made above - that a decision need not be specifically reversed or overruled to be bad law (see Dred Scott, Korematsu).

Several Mahoney/Daly decisions, made on exactly the same grounds as Credit River, were declared nullities by the highest court in Minnesota on the dual grounds that they far exceeded Mahoney's jurisdiction, and that they were simply wrong. See Zurn v. Northwestern National Bank, 284 Minn. 573, 170 N.W.2d 600 (1969), and Daly v. Savage State Bank, 285 Minn. 503, 171 N.W.2d 218 (1969). Daly himself was first suspended (In Re Jerome Daly, 284 Minn.567, 171 N.W.2d 818 (1969)) and then disbarred (In re Jerome Daly, 291 Minn. 488, 189 N.W.2d 176 (1971)) for arguing in court the exact positions which Heidi espouses here - and seeking to walk away from his own legitimate debts on those grounds. Sound familiar?

Legally, there is no "other side". The only thing at stake are profits from book sales to those who don't know better.

the likes of Murray N. Rothbard and Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Phd. ... learned men whose lectures are available on youtube, btw -- just search their names.

Ooh. It's on Youtube. It must be true.

Attempting to vilify me is simply aiming at the easy target, like any amateur. Try taking on the targets that I've espoused and see how far you get.

If they come here, I'll be glad to. Especially Rothbard. Please be clear about what I'm saying, though. I'm not arguing economics. That's not my field. Anyone who asserts that this nonsense is even arguable law, though, is legally ignorant.

As you are well aware, countless decisions are never appealed, and therefore never overturned OR upheld... that does not make the decisions themselves "mythological".

While I am glad you finally realize that, you still fail to take the next step: Due to the lack of appellate review, even if not identical to other cases specifically nullified by a higher court, those decisions are of little relevance to anyone other than the parties to them.

[Pantekhnikon]

Heidi is at it again and ordinarily I would not participate, but I must note that Credit Unions participate in the fractional reserve banking process and are not required to maintain 100% of depositors demand deposits in reserve.

CORRECTION: Credit Unions do NOT participate in fractional reserve lending. I do wish you people would at least read Rothbard and listen to Vieira before you misinform the public like this.

(Bold emphasis mine)
http://www.creditunion.coop/what_is_a_cu.html

Credit unions are financial institutions formed by an organized group of people with a common bond. Members of credit unions pool their assets to provide loans and other financial services to each other.

Credit unions differ from other banks in several ways:

Credit Unions
1) Not-for-profit cooperatives
2) Owned by members
3) Operated by mostly volunteer boards

Other Financial Institutions
1) Owned by outside stockholders
2) Owned by outside stockholders
3) Controlled by paid boards

These factors allow credit unions to pay dividends to their members (not shareholders) and offer them lower loan rates, higher savings rates and fewer service fees.

The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) is the federal agency that charters and supervises federal credit unions. They also insure savings in federal and most state-chartered credit unions across the country through the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF), a federal fund backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.

This section of the CUNA website includes additional information about the history of credit unions, where to locate credit unions near you, and how you might be eligible to join.

In fact, all commercial bankings systems practice some form of fractional reserve banking...

I have to believe that the only reason you would write an ignorant statement like the above would be just that... simple ignorance of the actual process of fractional reserve lending.

Years ago, Demosthenes posted the link to a Federal Reserve chart which clearly demonstrated the creation of new 'money' via the fractional reserve process.

Fractional reserve lending is NOT the process of lending out a portion of depositors' ACTUAL pooled funds.

Fractional reserve lending is the process of using an initial deposit (the so-called 'reserve') as the BASIS for loaning 90% of that deposit out in NEWLY CREATED funds. Once those NEW funds are deposited someplace else, those deposits then become the basis for loaning out 90% of THAT amount, and so on until NINE TIMES as much 'money' as existed in that first deposit has been created. The entire amount of the initial reserve deposit REMAINS on deposit. NONE of it has been removed from that account and lent out. NEW money has been created during the lending process... thus causing an INCREASE in the money supply and what we call 'inflation'.

That process would be the OPPOSITE of lending OUT a percentage of actual pre-existing deposits. Lending out pre-existing deposits puts actual pre-existing capital at RISK instead of creating NEW money based upon some 'reserve' capital which still remains INTACT.

ONLY the Federal Reserve Banking system is legally permitted to do that.

For example: My father invested a large portion of his life savings in second mortgages -- meaning he lent borrowers a portion of his actual capital.

In the 1980's we had a real estate value slump almost as serious as the one we have now. My father LOST a significant portion of his pre-existing capital investment when the borrowers defaulted and the holders of the first mortgages barely got paid at foreclosure sales. A third of his life savings evaporated.

UNLIKE Federal Reserve Banking institutions, my father was NOT permitted by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to leave all of his existing capital safely in the bank while lending out newly created money (counterfeiting) and increasing the money supply (inflation).

except the nationalized (state-owned) banking institutions in some Islamic countries.

Credit Unions, in fact, have no shareholders who are not also members...

I believe the information which is provided by the Credit Union National Assn (above). They do not have shareholders. They do have members.

...and are "mutual" insitutions, meaining that all profits go to members in the form of reduced interest rates, etc. Since the only capital in a credit union is the member deposits...

You actually wrote 31 consecutive true words there, Prof. Congrats.

Unfortunately you lapsed back into disinformation again...

...in order to loan one thin dime, the credit union would have to practice fractional reserve banking.

WRONG. In order to loan one thin dime, (or any other amount of their members' pre-existing capital), a portion of the CU members' actual deposits has to LEAVE those accounts and be placed into the hands of the other member(s) who are borrowing the funds... EXACTLY the way my father's actual pre-existing capital left his bank account and was lent to the people he granted second mortgages. That means actual RISK -- NOT creation of new money and inflation of the money supply.

You apparently fail to realize that prior to the advent of fractional reserve lending, peoples' actual capital left their bank accounts when it was loaned OUT to someone.

Since credit unions can be observed to make loans, and since none really has any separate shareholder capital as such, they must be lending some fraction of their deposits and not holding 100% in reserve.

That is correct. But that is NOT fractional reserve lending. That is the type of actual lending that was practiced prior to the advent of fractional reserve lending.

[Prof]

You have absolutely no idea what "fractional reserve" banking is, do you?

Even the Social Credit and Austrian School economists understand what the definition is, and these are people you claim to have read.

I knew I shouldn't attempt to respond to any of your clap-trap.

[Burzmali]

Like Steve and Student before her, she thinks that a bank can snap its fingers and create a loan without actually having the money. In the rush to get from A to C, Heidi passes over B. When in doubt DFTT.

[Pantekhnikon]

It [the so-called "Credit River" case] has not been nullified

The Credit River Decision was nullified

Enough. Whatever Heidi says is a cross between ad hoc rationalization and stream of consciousness nonsense. When propositions "A" and "¬A" appear in her same post, it's time to move on.

Now wasn't that a clever attempt at taking quotes out of context and hoping that our readers are too worn out by wading through your group obfuscations to look back up through this thread and find out what I actually said... and even better, to realize what I actually meant:

Snip spin, spin, spin, spinnity-spin. Ignore for the moment Heidi's "Forget what I said, here's what I meant" apologia. No case can be a "nullity" in one context and a valid basis for argument in another. It's either a nullity or it's not. Heidi would have it both ways, and can't.

Spin spin, spin, spin, spinnity-spin YOURSELF, wserra. Either you know what I meant and are playing your lawyerly game of semantics obfuscation... or you actually misunderstood what I meant and you refuse to accept my clarification. Hopefully others are more capable and more willing to comprehend my point.

AGAIN -- there is a difference between literal nullification and figurative nullification. The case was never literally, legally nullified because it was never appealed and was not included in the later decisions of the Minn Supreme Court which nullified other cases presided by Mahoney several months later.

The Credit River Decision has ONLY been nullified figuratively, because it cannot be cited as stare decisis or considered 'law'. Hopefully you can now comprehend my meaning.

As I posted earlier, it appears that the specific decision was never appealed, and (as Heidi correctly says) that the decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court nullifying the Mahoney/Daly decisions was effective some months post-Credit River. I posted all this a few years ago, when Heidi first appeared here. That brings us to the point I made above - that a decision need not be specifically reversed or overruled to be bad law (see Dred Scott, Korematsu).

LOL.... a decision which is not stare decisis is not law, period. It can be neither good law nor bad law when it does not yet constitute any law at all. It is purely and simply a jury decision. You already know that wserra... heh heh... talk about SPIN.....

Several Mahoney/Daly decisions, made on exactly the same grounds as Credit River, were declared nullities by the highest court in Minnesota on the dual grounds that they far exceeded Mahoney's jurisdiction, and that they were simply wrong. See Zurn v. Northwestern National Bank, 284 Minn. 573, 170 N.W.2d 600 (1969), and Daly v. Savage State Bank, 285 Minn. 503, 171 N.W.2d 218 (1969). Daly himself was first suspended (In Re Jerome Daly, 284 Minn.567, 171 N.W.2d 818 (1969)) and then disbarred (In re Jerome Daly, 291 Minn. 488, 189 N.W.2d 176 (1971)) for arguing in court the exact positions which Heidi espouses here - and seeking to walk away from his own legitimate debts on those grounds. Sound familiar?

Notice that none of the cases that were nullified, and none of the cases that wserra cited above, ever included the sworn testimony of a Bank President as to the creation of new money via a bookkeeping entry.

Legally, there is no "other side". The only thing at stake are profits from book sales to those who don't know better.

the likes of Murray N. Rothbard and Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Phd. ... learned men whose lectures are available on youtube, btw -- just search their names.

Ooh. It's on Youtube. It must be true.

Ha ha...just like a lawyer.... are you implying that because it's on youtube it must NOT be true; that anyone who posts videos on youtube should be suspected of lying?

Hopefully people will listen to these experts and decide for themselves.

Attempting to vilify me is simply aiming at the easy target, like any amateur. Try taking on the targets that I've espoused and see how far you get.

If they come here, I'll be glad to. Especially Rothbard. Please be clear about what I'm saying, though. I'm not arguing economics. That's not my field. Anyone who asserts that this nonsense is even arguable law, though, is legally ignorant.

Please find where I ever asserted that the Credit River Decision constitutes "law". It constitutes nothing more or less than a jury decision after hearing sworn testimony.

As you are well aware, countless decisions are never appealed, and therefore never overturned OR upheld... that does not make the decisions themselves "mythological".

While I am glad you finally realize that...

Actually, I've known that for some time.

...you still fail to take the next step: Due to the lack of appellate review, even if not identical to other cases specifically nullified by a higher court, those decisions are of little relevance to anyone other than the parties to them.

Well that, too, is a matter of OPINION, counselor... since other people might somewhat identify with the debtor/defendant in that case... and be shocked to learn about the true process of money creation via fractional reserve lending... and might also identify with those jurors who came to the conclusion that such a process seems inherently fraudulent.

[/quote]

[Pantekhnikon]

You have absolutely no idea what "fractional reserve" banking is, do you?

Even the Social Credit and Austrian School economists understand what the definition is, and these are people you claim to have read.

I certainly have... have YOU?

I knew I shouldn't attempt to respond to any of your clap-trap.

You really shouldn't attempt to respond to me, since YOU don't seem to understand:

http://www.federalreserveeducation.org/ ... eation.pdf

Let's just deal with facts, now, shall we?

Notice the TITLE of that webpage:

"The Principle of Multiple Deposit Creation"

[Pantekhnikon]

Like Steve and Student before her, she thinks that a bank can snap its fingers and create a loan without actually having the money. In the rush to get from A to C, Heidi passes over B. When in doubt DFTT.

So amusing and complacent in your ignorance.....

No, a bank cannot "snap its fingers" since a bank has no fingers. A human employee of the banking institution must tap a few keys and make an electronic bookkeeping entry or so.
But never mind that.

Look long and hard at the Fed's own chart and try to understand what you see there:

http://www.federalreserveeducation.org/ ... eation.pdf