Would like your help in order to countersue, once our bank begins foreclosing procedures. (You see, I am contemplating on foreclosing, in light of learning about the following case, briefly described below.) And if you WOULD help me to countersue, would you take this on contingency? (IMPORTANT: I ALREADY have a pre-written letter to the bank, that seems will work VERY WELL, and I will email it to you upon request for reviewing!)
The Credit River Decision
Jerome Daly had a mortgage with the First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota. In Spring 1967, he was $476.00 in arrears, the bank foreclosed and bought the property at a Sheriff's sale on June 26, 1967. The bank sued for possession and a jury trial, presided over by Martin V. Mahoney (Justice of the Peace, Credit River Township, Scott County, Minnesota), was held on December 7, 1968. The bank's president, Lawrence V. Morgan, appeared along with lawyer R. Melby for the plaintiff, and Jerome Daly, who HIMSELF was a lawyer, appeared on his own behalf. Anyway, in summary, "The Credit River Decision," which is apparently, still "The Law OF The Land" declared the following:
# the Federal Reserve Act unconstitutional and VOID
# holding the National Banking Act unconstitutional and VOID
# declaring a mortgage acquired by the First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota in the regular course of its business, along with the foreclosure to be unconstitutional and VOID
# the sheriff's sale, to be unconstitutional and VOID
Besides the obvious (which IS, that all banks do their best to keep this case HUSH), the reason why this isn’t well known, is due to the fact that, since this court was a “justice of the peace” court – these cases are not precedent-setting and are therefore not published. Hence, only a tiny number of people know about this case.
1 Answer from Attorneys
The case you describe is real, but it was reversed on appeal. Decisions by justices of the peace (JOPs) have no value as precedent, but even if this one somehow did the reversal undermined it. The only precedent is the order that reversed the ruling you described.
What's more, the decision was so bizarre -- and so contrary to law -- that the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered the JOP to cease any further activity in the case and to explain his actions. The JOP ignored that order but died soon afterward, rendering the case against him moot.
Mr. Daly (who was the plaintiff's lawyer, not the plaintiff) was also ordered to show cause and chose to ignore that order, claiming that the state Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction over him. He was held in contempt and suspended from practice as a result, and was later disbarred. The order disbarring him called his conduct in the Credit River case "not only unprofessional but reprehensible", and held that it "reflects professional irresponsibility to such a degree as to render respondent totally unfit to continue to discharge the duties of an attorney."
You will get nowhere relying on this decision. The argument you want to make is meritless. The fact that a justice of the peace (who wasn't a lawyer and who didn't even have jurisdiction over the case) in another state agreed with it 40-plus years ago does not change that fact.
Related Questions & Answers
As i was walking on the perimeter of my campus i yelled out "what the... Asked 10/29/10, 11:57 am in United States Connecticut Constitutional Law