“Re: How Private Banks Create Money” by Vee – 5.23.22



Entry Submitted by Vee at 10:39 AM ET on May 23, 2022

The Survival Economist: This is How the Private Banks have a License to Create Money out of Thin Air

And the point for this posting ?? solutions ? 
how many on this IDC site still play in the sand box of these syndicates ??  
Oh because you have to .. no way around it ?   Life will be to hard to live out of the box. yet ya know the fact and truth and still insist to be a part of it. 
How many of you ever thought .. to have a non interest bearing bank account ? or non at all. So this linked post gives the details of the cartel system, and I guess we all just got to sit on our hands and wait it out till some others can make the change. 
All residential foreclosures are illegal and theft. And the County Sheriffs allow it… they are accomplices to the criminal syndicates. 
1st. Article 1 section 10  of the Constitution “No State shall, …. make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;… ” 

2nd.  First National Bank of Montgomery vs Jerome Dalyaka Credit River Case 


Justice Martin V. Mahoney 

First National Bank of Montgomery, 


Jerome Daly, 


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. 
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 Sheriffs 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 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 ; 


1. That the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, 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 Sheriffs sale of the above-described premises held on June 26, 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.                   
8. 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. 
Dated: December 9, 1968 MARTIN V. MAHONEY 

Justice of the Peace, Credit River Township, Scott 

County, Minnesota 

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 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 tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Busch Brewing Company v.       Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318, 46 N.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 wrongdoers 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." 

Plaintiffs 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. 


December 9, 1968 MARTESf V. MAHONEY 
Justice of the Peace 
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. Missouri , 4 Peters Reports 912. This Court can tread    only that path which is marked out by duty. M.V.M. 
FORWARD: The above Judgment was entered by the Court on December 9, 1968. The issue there was simple - Nothing is the law gave the Banks the right  to create money on their books. 
The Bank filed a Notice of Appeal within 10 days. The Appeals statutes    must be strictly followed, otherwise the District Court does not acquire  Jurisdiction upon Appeal. To effect the Appeal the Bank had to deposit  $2.00 with the Clerk within 10 days for payment to the Justice of the     Peace, when he made his return to the District Court. The Bank deposited  two $1.00 Federal Reserve Notes. The Justice refused the Notes and refused to allow the Appeal upon the grounds that the Notes were unlawful and void for any purpose. The Decision is addressed to the legality of these Notes and the Federal Reserve System. The Cases of Edwards v. Kearnzey and Craig 
vs. Missouri set out in the decision should be studied very carefully as  they bear on the inviolability of Contracts. 


Somewhere in this case the Judge stated in response to the Plaintiffs assertion to how the “money or credit” was created that it sounded like fraud to him and the jury shook their heads in agreement. Fraud null and voids every action-contracts for the start. There are no statutes of time limitation on fraud.. but when it is/was discovered…then it’s 7 yrs (the last I knew)

3rd. we had/have  no other means than to use those private reverse notes thus we have an inability to perfume otherwise thus it is coercion, and as such we are not liable to any undisclosed aspects of an assumed agreement.  Stop paying interest on see the above court case …stop paying on a fraudulent note, you are the creditor not the debtor. 


If you wish to contact the author of any reader submitted guest post, you can give us an email at and we’ll forward your request to the author.

All articles, videos, and images posted on Dinar Chronicles were submitted by readers and/or handpicked by the site itself for informational and/or entertainment purposes.

Dinar Chronicles is not a registered investment adviser, broker dealer, banker or currency dealer and as such, no information on the website should be construed as investment advice. We do not support, represent or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any content or communications posted on this site. Information posted on this site may or may not be fictitious. We do not intend to and are not providing financial, legal, tax, political or any other advice to readers of this website.

Copyright © 2022 Dinar Chronicles



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here