Below is the new law in it’s entirety. I would really appreciate any comments or concerns about this. I have read it many times and really like what it says. It basically insures that we can work together to keep your medical records out of the reach of the government.
Why does the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) need to know my BMI (Basic Metabolic Index)(how fat I am)?
On August 3, 2010 Please vote YES on Missouri prop C, and when you talk to your friends and neighbors ask them to support us.
Also, let them know about me. Many of them are being mistreated by the medical system for things I can quickly fix. I will waive the initial exam fee of $40.00 for them in your honor.
Here is prop C:
Back to Missouri Health Care Freedom Amendment, Proposition C (2010)
Proposition C will appear on the August 3, 2010 statewide ballot in Missouri. If approved by voters the measure would repeal Section A. Section 375.1175, RSMo, and enact two new sections to be known as sections 1.330 and 375.1175. The new sections would read as follows:
1.330. 1. No law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system.
2. A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required by law or rule to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health care services and shall not be required by law or rule to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.
3. Subject to reasonable and necessary rules that do not substantially limit a person’s options, the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by law or rule.
4. This section does not:
(1) Affect which health care services a health care provider or hospital is required to perform or provide;
(2) Affect which health care services are permitted by law;
(3) Prohibit care provided under workers’ compensation as provided under state law;
(4) Affect laws or regulations in effect as of January 1, 2010;
(5) Affect the terms or conditions of any health care system to the extent that those terms and conditions do not have the effect of punishing a person or employer for paying directly for lawful health care services or a health care provider or hospital for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.
5. As used in this section, the following terms shall mean:
(1) “Compel”, any penalties or fines;
(2) “Direct payment or pay directly”, payment for lawful health care services without a public or private third party, not including an employer, paying for any portion of the service;
(3) “Health care system”, any public or private entity whose function or purpose is the management of, processing of, enrollment of individuals for or payment for, in full or in part, health care services or health care data or health care information for its participants;
(4) “Lawful health care services”, any health-related service or treatment to the extent that the service or treatment is permitted or not prohibited by law or regulation that may be provided by persons or businesses otherwise permitted to offer such services; and
(5) “Penalties or fines”, any civil or criminal penalty or fine, tax, salary or wage withholding or surcharge or any named fee with a similar effect established by law or rule by a government established, created or controlled agency that is used to punish or discourage the exercise of rights protected under this section.
375.1175. 1. The director may petition the court for an order directing him to liquidate a domestic insurer or an alien insurer domiciled in this state on the basis:
(1) Of any ground for an order of rehabilitation as specified in section 375.1165, whether or not there has been a prior order directing the rehabilitation of the insurer;
(2) That the insurer is insolvent;
(3) That the insurer is in such condition that the further transaction of business would be hazardous, financially or otherwise, to its policyholders, its creditors or the public;
(4) That the insurer is found to be in such condition after examination that it could not meet the requirements for incorporation and authorization specified in the law under which it was incorporated or is doing business; or
(5) That the insurer has ceased to transact the business of insurance for a period of one year.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a domestic insurer organized as a stock insurance company may voluntarily dissolve and liquidate as a corporation under sections 351.462 to 351.482, provided that:
(1) The director, in his or her sole discretion, approves the articles of dissolution prior to filing such articles with the secretary of state. In determining whether to approve or disapprove the articles of dissolution, the director shall consider, among other factors, whether:
(a) The insurer’s annual financial statements filed with the director show no written insurance premiums for five years; and
(b) The insurer has demonstrated that all policyholder claims have been satisfied or have been transferred to another insurer in a transaction approved by the director; and
(c) An examination of the insurer pursuant to sections 374.202 to 374.207 has been completed within the last five years; and
(2) The domestic insurer files with the secretary of state a copy of the director’s approval, certified by the director, along with articles of dissolution as provided in section 351.462 or 351.468.
As you are probably aware, liberal special interest groups filed a lawsuit to remove Proposition C—the Health Care Freedom Act—from the August 3 ballot.
I’m happy to report that their effort has failed. Yesterday, a Cole County judge rejected their challenge, ensuring that Missourians will have the right to make their voice heard on the federal health care bill in less than 3 weeks. I have included the Associated Press article below.
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A Missouri judge on Friday rejected a legal challenge to an Aug. 3 ballot measure that, if approved by voters, would put Missouri in conflict with a key provision of the new federal health care law.
Cole County Circuit Judge Paul Wilson dismissed a lawsuit that had sought to strike the proposal from the ballot on grounds that lawmakers violated the state constitution in their crafting of the legislation. The ruling could be appealed.
The Missouri measure proposes a state law barring governments from requiring people to have health insurance or from penalizing people for paying their health bills with their own money. It would conflict with a requirement of the new federal health care law that most people must have health insurance or face fines by 2014.
Missouri’s election essentially would be the nation’s first statewide popularity vote on the health care law backed by President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress. But its legal affect is questionable, because federal laws generally supersede those in states.
The lawsuit claimed Missouri’s measure violates state constitutional requirements that legislation contain a clear title with a single subject that is not changed from its original purpose.
In court arguments Tuesday, plaintiffs’ attorney Chip Gentry argued the ballot measure posed an unconstitutional conundrum for voters by forcing them to cast a single “yes” or “no” vote for what really is a two-part question.
Besides banning government-mandated health insurance, the Missouri measure would allow insurance companies to voluntarily dissolve. The provision on insurance mandates and wording referring the measure to the August ballot were added in the Senate to a House bill that originally dealt only with insurance company liquidations.
The lawsuit claimed the bill’s title of “relating to insurance” is so broad it is meaningless. But Wilson wrote in a decision issued after the close of business Friday that the Missouri Supreme Court has upheld numerous bills with far broader titles.
Wilson said both parts of the legislation relate to insurance and so satisfy the constitution’s requirement of a single subject. The judge also rejected the lawsuit’s assertion that legislators changed the bill’s original purpose by adding the section about health insurance mandates.
“The bill’s original purpose was to regulate insurance and insurance companies,” Wilson wrote in his ruling. “This purpose remained the same.”
Wilson also rejected arguments against the auditor’s financial estimate for the ballot measure and the timing by which the secretary of state distributed the ballot measure language to local election officials.
The judge’s decision largely agreed with the arguments of State Solicitor Jim Layton, a former co-worker in the attorney general’s office. Wilson was appointed to the court in January by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon, for whom he had worked since 1996 – first in the attorney general’s office and then in the governor’s office.
Missouri bills typically go to the governor to be signed or vetoed. But the Republican-led Legislature bypassed Nixon on the health insurance legislation by sending it directly to the ballot.
it is like the false left vs. right paradigm. the deflationary gold scam was solved with the inflationary fed scam. now, there is a move to go back to the old scam. you’re given perpetually false solutions by transitioning back and forth between each polar extreme while being continually scammed, just in different ways.
well said, solve the debt induced inflation from Federal Reserve Illegal Fiat with ferocious deflation from gold convertibility that lead to the Panic of 1837, the Crime of 73′ and farmers committing suicide.
How can a fiat be neutral? Value of various property compared to each other will always fluctuate. Fiat is a faith based system that has nothing backing it up. I would love to read more about alternate solutions to the fractional reserve banking scam we have been living with. Why should one class of people have the right to counterfeit, and the rest of us cannot?
I am suggesting money be spent debt free into the economy via infrastructure spending as opposed to debt induced lending or borrowing thus making it a permanent part of the monetary supply and representation of monetized wealth.
To avoid inflation merely set a 8-9% expansion cap per year and to avoid deflation by a measure that requires the per capita supply of money never falls (thus guarding against depression-inducing contractions)
you manage the amount of paper in supply and not attach it to debt. you determine how much to remove and add to supply using very broad price indexes if economic conditions result in broad inflation or deflation. you remove and add by adjusting state revenue/expediture. you can make it transparent and most evenly distributed with a citizen dividend.
yes, you convert existing fed notes for a public note. then, you add and remove on state expenditure. you spend less, you remove. you spend more, you add. a tax system that favors production, labor, investment, savings, and loans, and reduces the cost of living and poverty, like a land value tax, combined with a citizen dividend, is the most even…See More
yes, darrell, not only transparent but with the rules transparent and rigid. make congress make changes to the rules by the requirement of a constitutional amendment or super majority vote for more fluid issues, such as deficit spending funded with bonds or inflation or changes to price indexes. you just issue tokens, converting existing notes 1 for 1, and you manage the tokens with transparent policy rather than the current system of managing credit supply with interest attached to it.
super majority like a constitutional amendment, perhaps even with agreement from governors, with full terms of the deficit spending. that should help keep a balanced budget except for real emergencies where it could be justified.
The major flaw with our current monetary system is that money is created via commercial bank lending the principle thus that amount is reduced from the monetary supply once it is paid back (money is destroyed) adding to the overall indebtedness of the entire society on a massive scale.
The system is naturally deflationary which forces businesses to absorb the higher costs of borrowing money via raising prices and consumers to borrow more money to afford those prices thus creating monetary inflation.
Some insist a business will conveniently lower the price of their goods during a contraction however, reality proves otherwise since the business must meed a break-even point or go bankrupt.
These same people also ignore that employment opportunities are also drastically lower during these contractions while merely looking at the value of the currency in question to do the slow-down in the velocity of money.
you could do caps the same way… giving the federal government some flexibility in over-spending, but not on the scale of trillions, but a few billion. and if you tie it to a citizen dividend too, the people are going to want the government to underspend rather than overspend if it influences how much they get from the government. the citizen dividend would encourage the end of all state social services. the less state social services, the bigger the dividend for private social services, with the most critical being able to afford your own land and land value taxes or the equivalent for private social services, if you should be disabled. if you’re disabled, family members will be more likely to give you room and board if you have a check coming in.
I think I am following, please allow me some points of clarification. How is new wealth be brought into the equation? Say I use my issued tokens and buy raw material then use my talents to change it into something very desirable and therefor more valuable. When I attempt to sell it, where is the extra credits coming from for someone to afford my improved product? What about amassing wealth through savings? Since the credits in circulation are monitored, what if everyone decided to save their credits instead of spend them, could the relative value of the credits as a circulating commodity go up simply because of this activity?
“How is new wealth be brought into the equation?”
You would capture part of the money that already exists in the monetary supply – new wealth would be a natural expansion of the monetary supply since generally it only expands when wealth is monetized (for example a mag-lev rail system).
“? What about amassing wealth through savings? ”
The Wealth has to be there first before you can save it because the money reflects the wealth.
So each year, the old money would stay in circulation and the government would introduce new money according to their spending projects and a per capita distribution? How would the government take money back out of circulation? If I did not spend my yearly tokens could accumulate them for my children when I die? I am trying to work this through and appreciate your patiences with me on this.
“How would the government take money back out of circulation?”
They don’t because each dollar represents physical labor and monetized wealth as opposed to “Promises of future labor”
The government of course would tax, but those taxes would obviously be used to cover whatever expenses and debts the federal government had. “If I did not spend my yearly tokens could accumulate them for my children when I die?”
Of course they are merely going to be dollars like you have now but as opposed to being a usurious debt based system each dollar is a permanent part of the monetary supply.
Bare with me here, so each year an amount of tokens is added to the economy equal to or greater than the year before? How many years would it take to completely flood the economy with these tokens making their relative value compared to finite commodities like real estate go down? Why wouldn’t supply and demand economics make the value of the growing number of nonparishable tokens diminish? I am asking these questions because like you, I think we can devise a better way to interact with the free market than gold or debt based dollars.
How many years would it take to completely flood the economy with these tokens making their relative value compared to finite commodities like real estate go down? Why wouldn’t supply and demand economics make the value of the growing number of nonparishable tokens diminish?
Population and economy expands, tokens expand.
“The gold standard and the inflation argument that was used to justify it were based on the classical “quantity theory of money.” The foundation of classical monetary theory, it held that inflation is caused by “too much money chasing too few goods.” When “demand” (the money available to buy goods) increases faster than “supply” (goods and services), prices are forced up. If the government were allowed to simply issue all the Greenback dollars it needed, the money supply would increase faster than goods and services, and price inflation would result. If paper money were tied to gold, a commodity in limited and fixed supply, the money supply would remain stable and price inflation would be avoided.
A corollary to that theory was the classical maxim that the government should balance its budget at all costs. If it ran short of money, it was supposed to borrow from the bankers rather than print the money it needed, in order to keep from inflating the money supply. The argument was a “straw man” argument — one easily knocked down because it contained a logical fallacy — but the fallacy was not immediately obvious, because the bankers were concealing their hand. The fallacy lay in the assumption that the money the government borrowed from the banks already existed and was merely being recycled. If the bankers themselves were creating the money they lent, the argument collapsed in a heap of straw. The money supply would obviously increase just as much from bank-created money as from government-created money. In either case, it was money pulled out of an empty hat. Money created by the government had the advantage that it would not plunge the taxpayers into debt; and it provided a permanent money supply, one not dependent on higher and higher levels of borrowing to stay afloat.
The quantity theory of money contained another logical fallacy, which was pointed out later by British economist John Maynard Keynes. Adding money (“demand”) to the economy would drive up prices only if the “supply” side of the equation remained fixed. If new Greenbacks were issued to create new goods and services, supply would increase along with demand, and prices would remain stable. When a shoe salesmen with many unsold shoes on his shelves suddenly got more customers, he did not raise his prices. He sold more shoes. If he ran out of shoes, he ordered more from the factory, which produced more. If he were to raise his prices, his customers would go to the shop down the street, where shoes were still being sold at the lower price. Adding more money to the economy would inflate prices only when the producers ran out of the labor and materials needed to make more goods. Before that, supply and demand would increase together, leaving prices as they were before.”
you only add if there is economic deflation. it isn’t every year. and it should be managed on a monthly or quarterly basis. more difficult to do such management with a gold standard since you’re having to buy or sell gold.
not sure the ellen brown argument holds. if supply inreases or demand falls, the pressure would be deflationary, thus, you’d add tokens. if supply falls or demand increases, the pressure is inflationary, which you remove tokens. the changing supply and demand can be from numerous reasons, including population changes, employment, commodity cycles,new technology, etc. the trend would be deflationary largely from growing employment and productivity increases. growing employment can result from increased population though growing population can induce inflationary effects if suppy doesn’t keep up with demand. however, there is a lag in inflationary and deflationary pressures as ellen brown suggested, so simply adding or removing tokens should be done with caution. i’m not sure of the details of issues involved though the fed already does monitor and try to address such issues indirectly with setting the prime rate so i’m sure the science is well understood.
The Ellen Brown argument merely points out the fallacy of the quantitative theory of money by highlighting that merely printing money is not inflationary so long as the aggregate production output keeps pace with the monetary supply.
for example, you can’t correct the problem of an oil shortage causing an inflationary situation in the economy. however, you can correct problems from the other factors causing an inflationary or deflationary influence on the currency, such as population, bank runs, or productivity. it tends to be complex, and you can’t completely do away with inflation and deflation because they serve a purpose to correct markets. however, you can correct broad inflation and deflation caused by other factors.
meaning, add tokens if there are more people chasing more supply, or remove tokens if there are less people chasing less supply. prices will still increase and decrease and cascade from changing markets. you can’t address that nor do you want to try to address that.
I am not so sure it’s necessary to remove currency from the system but rather set a cap on the monetary expansion rate depending on the inflation level (if there is inflation)… initially 8 or 9% but if there is indeed an inflationary phase set the cap lower.
Under the advocated system a high inflation rate is very unlikely at a 8 or 9% annual expansion cap thus I’d find it hard to imagine any broad inflation in the first place. I suppose making it a possibility wouldn’t hurt but i don’t see it actually occurring in the first place.
you’re right. if deflation is the overall trend, you would be adding to supply. if inflation is created, the corrective action would be to reduce expansion rather than reverse it, since the overall trend would correct it.
wow, thanks for hangin with me here. I completely agree it is the government’s job to print the fiat, NOT private interests.
I still have a couple questions if you don’t mind.
1. In 1920s the global population was expanding rapidly. In 2010 the opposite is occurring. How does this model work in a contracting population?
2. As a trained physician I trade my finite time for a means to support my family. It is much cheaper for me to negotiate direct trades without using a third party token. What would entice me to use one government token over another?
3. In a system described above the government gets to print and bring the money into the economy right? As a business man, it doesn’t take long to figure out the best way to get to the new credits is a government contract. How does this system promote innovation and individual empowerment?
SHERRY JACKSON HAS BEEN MOVED TO A NEW PRISON AND IS NOW MISSING!
Sherry Peel Jackson has been moved again and she has not been heard from for over two weeks. She disappeared one week before Christmas and her parents nor her husband and two beautiful children have heard from her.
She is the ex-IRS agent in Aaron Russo’s video America ~ Freedom to Fascism
(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173#) a must see film which every living man, woman and child must see. Aaron Russo gave his life to produce this documentary. Sherry, a CPA, Certified Fraud Investigator, received a 4-year sentence for telling Americans the truth, although she broke no law.
Please ask everyone to send her an encouraging note so that she knows she is not alone or forgotten. Let her know that this country is aware that she has been moved, thousands are still watching her situation closely and praying for her release. Anyone who has been in her situation cannot imagine how much good is accomplished by countless cards and letters. It does much more than just lift her spirits, which in itself is huge. It also lets the system know that she is well-known and many are watching closely to see that she is treated properly while in her federal cage, with two long years to go!
Here is her new address. Her loving husband believes she has been moved again since she has been missing for over two weeks and no one has heard a word from her. Diesel Therapy?
Sherry Peel Jackson
We believe this is her new location: SHERRY P JACKSON 59085-019 47-Black-F 08-08-2011 TALLAHASSEE FCI
Now start sending those cards and letters please!
Please take the time to see what this beautiful lady stands for and the sacrifice she, her children and her husband are paying for your family.
Sherry Peel Jackson Ex IRS Agent on Income Tax (2of2)
Pls send this ON, let The Light of the Truth Shine n ask WHY the money changers never dared to appeal.
Submitted by questministries… on December 14, 2009 – 1:31am.
NaturalNews) Jerome Daly is one of the few men to take on the might of the Federal Reserve in the courts and win. 40 years ago, a Minnesota bank attempted to foreclose on Daly`s mortgage but he humiliated them, thanks to his profound knowledge of Fractional Reserve Banking and a courageous, scrupulously honest judge. The judge delivered a dynamite decision that blasted the Federal Reserve and National Banks as unconstitutional and fraudulent. Understandably, the bankers have tried to bury this case and keep the controversial decree from public knowledge.
Those of you who may be facing the grim prospect of foreclosure on your mortgage, or if you know someone who is facing foreclosure, then the incredible story of Jerome Daly will delight and amaze you.
Jerome Daly was an attorney in Minnesota in the 1960s. In May, 1964, he took out a mortgage for $14,000 with The First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota, on a property described as Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota.
Somehow, three years later, Mr. Daly fell behind on his mortgage payments and the bank initiated proceedings to foreclose. The case was heard before a jury in Credit River Township, Scott County, Minnesota, at 10 a.m. on December 7th, 1968. The trial justice was Martin V. Mahoney, a remarkable, no-nonsense man of great integrity and fair-play.
Jerome Daly, being a lawyer, defended himself. The main witness for the prosecution was a Lawrence V. Morgan, President of The First National Bank of Montgomery.
The main issues were whether or not the loan transaction constituted a legal `consideration` and whether or not Mr. Daly waived his rights to complain by having paid his loan for three years.
For any loan transaction to be legal and binding a lawful `consideration` must be brought to the table by both parties. Mr. Daly said that as a consideration he put up his property of Lot 19, Fairview Beach. Mr. Daly further asserted that the bank provided no consideration but merely created the money out of thin air!
Under cross examination by Jerome Daly, Mr. Morgan the bank president spoke candidly and truthfully. Nevertheless, his evidence astonished the judge and jury.
Mr. Morgan admitted that by making a book-keeping entry the bank created the money out of nothing but that this was standard practice exercised by his bank in conjunction with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private bank. When questioned by Daly he also conceded that he knew of no United States Law or Statute that gave the bank authority to create money out of nothing.
The court was gobsmacked. Justice Mahoney was heard to say, “That sounds like fraud to me.”
The bank went on to claim that the Defendant, Daly, accepted the ledger book credit and by paying his mortgage for almost three years he waived his right to complain about the consideration and was legally estopped from doing so.
At 12.15 p.m. the jury returned a verdict. They unanimously found for the Defendant, Jerome Daly.
Justice Mahoney`s Judgment and Decree makes for fascinating reading. Here are some of his major points.
1. The Plaintiff (the bank) was not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach
2. Because there was no lawful consideration the Mortgage was Null and Void
3. The Bank parted with absolutely nothing except a little ink
4. The Plaintiff had no right, title, interest, or lien on the property
5. Defendant is awarded costs in the amount of $75
In his Memorandum Justice Mahoney went on to say, “The jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing.”
He also said, “Even if the Defendant could be charged with waiver or estoppel as a matter of Law this is no defense [sic] to the Plaintiff. The Law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them.”
And incredibly… “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 [sic] or upon which any lawful rights can be built.”
Amazing! A properly accredited U.S. judge actually said this in a properly convened U.S. court!
“…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 emmission [sic] of Bills of Credit upon the books of these private Corporations, for the purposes of private gain is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States and is unlawful…”
Then the case took another incredible turn.
The bank appealed, as was their right to do so; but a lawful appeal must be made within 10 days and accompanied by fee of $2. If the Clerk of the Court does not receive the appeal and the appropriate $2 fee within 10 days, as is required by the strict Appeals Statutes, then the District Court does not acquire Jurisdiction upon Appeal.
When the Notice of Appeal and the $2 fee arrived on Justice Mahoney`s desk for him to make his return to the District Court the judge made a second landmark decision. After examining the two $1 bills he saw that they were Federal Reserve notes. Justice Mahoney refused the notes and refused to allow the Appeal upon the grounds that the notes were without any lawful consideration and void for any purpose.
Justice Mahoney would not accept the Federal Reserve notes to pay for the Appeal process because they were not true money but represented instruments of debt. If the bank had paid in silver dollars, half-dollars, quarters, dimes, nickels, or even pennies, their appeal would have been legitimate and would have been heard.
Justice Mahoney offered the bank a hearing on the issue but they failed to request one. Then the District Court ordered Mahoney to show cause as to why the Appeal should not be allowed. Mahoney then ordered a hearing on January 22nd, 1969, for the purposes of making Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
But no representative of the First National Bank of Montgomery turned up in court, nor was there any continuance requested by the bank or its attorney.
In his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Justice Mahoney made some extraordinary observations. The following 12 points are quoted directly from his report (http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/C…)…
1. The Federal Reserve Banks and National Banks create money and credit upon their books and exercise the ultimate prerogative of expanding and reducing the supply of money or credit in the United States. The creation of this money or credit constitutes the creation of fiat money upon the books of these banks.
2. When the Federal Reserve Banks and National Banks acquire United States Bonds and Securities, State Bonds and Securities, State Subdivision Bonds and Securities, mortgages on private Real property and mortgages on private personal property, the said banks create the money and credit upon their books by bookkeeping entry. The first time that the money comes into existance [sic] is when they create it on their bank books by bookkeeping entry. The banks create it out of nothing. No substantial fund of gold or silver is back of it, or any fund at all.
3. The Federal Reserve Bank obtains Federal Reserve Notes [no matter what denomination] for the cost of printing of each note which is less than one cent. The net effect of the entire transaction is that the Federal Reserve Bank obtains Federal Reserve Notes comparable to the ones they placed on file with the Clerk of the District Court…for the cost of printing only.
4. From 1913 down to date, the Federal Reserve Banks and the National Banks are privately owned. As of March 18, all gold backing is removed from the said Federal Reserve Notes. No gold or silver backs up these notes.
5. The Federal Reserve Notes in question in this case are unlawful and void…being contrary to Article 1, Section 10, of the Constitution of the United States…are not lawful money of the United States; are in violation of the Constitution of the United States and are not valid for any purpose.
6. Said Notes are fiat money, not redeemable in gold or silver coin upon their face, not backed by gold or silver, and the notes are in want of some real or substantial fund being provided for their payment in redemption.
7. The sole consideration paid for the One Dollar Federal Reserve Notes is in the neighborhood of nine-tenths of one cent, and therefore, there is no lawful consideration behind said Notes…As a matter of fact, the “Notes” are not Notes at all, as they contain no promise to pay.
8. The activity of the Federal Reserve Banks…and the First National Bank of Montgomery is contrary to public policy and the Constitution of the United States and constitutes an unlawful creation of money and credit and the obtaining of money and credit for no valuable consideration. The activity of said banks in creating money and credit is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States.
9. The Federal Reserve and National Banks exercise an exclusive monopoly and privilege of creating credit and issuing their Notes at the expense of the public, which does not receive a fair equivalent. This scheme is for the benefit of an idle monopoly and is used to rob, blackmail and oppress the producers of wealth.
10. The Federal Reserve Act and the National Bank Act is in its operation and effect contrary to the whole letter and spirit of the Constitution of the United States; confers an unlawful and unnecessary power on private parties; holds all of our fellow citizens in dependence; is subversive to the rights and liberties of the people. It has defied the lawfully constituted Government of the United States. The two banking Acts and Sec. 462 of Title 31, U.S.C. pages 41 and 42, are therefore unconstitutional and void.
11. This fraudulent Federal Reserve System and National Banking System has impaired the obligation of Contract, promoted disrespect for the Constitution and Law and has shaken society to its foundations.
12. No rights can be acquired by fraud. The Federal Reserve Notes are acquired thru [sic] the use of unconstitutional statutes and fraud.
This is a thoroughly amazing legal decision, unprecedented in the history of the United States. Justice Mahoney was not a man to mince his words. He was courageous in the extreme, perhaps even reckless, to deliver such a decree against the Federal Reserve.
But the great fortitude of this remarkable judge may have cost him his life.
Less than 6 months later, in June, 1969, Justice Martin V. Mahoney died in a mysterious boating accident. Those close to him say his body was heavily poisoned.
Justice Mahoney`s decree still stands and has not been challenged or overturned to this very day.
We owe it to the memory of this brave man to get his audacious milestone judgment out into mainstream public awareness.
Some citizens, facing foreclosure, have quoted this case as a precedent but ended up losing their cases. Not every judge in America possesses the integrity and decency of Judge Mahoney. Isn`t it time to stamp out this fraud and corruption that is so endemic in the legal, business, and political institutions of our world today?
Those interested in examining the original documents of this monumental legal decision will find scores of documents at: