No 57 – JUDGE DALE: “And the Rest Will Take Care of Itself”

Well you have wonderful instincts Raven. And Marty also. I do not know enough about the law to be able to tell if this man is for real or not. There are several Judge Dales I saw. Some with Dale as the first, some with it for the last name. I hope we find out more as that makes sense to me.

Thanks Raven for your input... as always brilliant!

Ha! Yep, I've got GREAT instincts, Skyz. That's why I'm still here on 3D instead of 5D like I'd planned. I had my galactic bags packed, remember? I may not have arrived there, but I did learn some important lessons from all that. Anywhooooo...

If I could distill the five parts of Dale's essay into a sentence, it would read: "All laws are myths, we are all sovereign beings whose Creator-given rights cannot be taken away or modified by any person, government, entity, etc."

He explains in great detail how this was done historically and much of what he wrote coincides (or confirms) things talked about in the OPPT stuff, specifically that when we were given a social security number and our names were written in CAPITAL LETTERS, we became essentially corporations under the law. This totally explains the Supreme Court's decision regard Citizens United, i.e. that corporations have the same rights as people. To have overturned that ruling would have meant we were no longer slaves to "the system." Only after they made that horrible ruling and so many people were upset and confused, I assume Judge Dale was moved to write his five part essay about the whole subject. His essay is not in legalese and is written for common people to understand. Lawyers and judges can do this if they want to but rarely do for many reasons mostly having to do with ego and money, surprise.

Thanksto all participants for this most insightful (& entertaining!) thread :blue:


Perhaps a reason for Judge Dale's anonymity & Gillian's "protection" of him: one in that profession (even formerly) essentially risks one's life for putting out info like he has. THe above info printed here by Judge Dale is quite accurate & deserves careful consideration, imo.

Ravens comments are enlightened also re judge's being sticklers for grammar/ spelling...: perhaps "Judge Dale" did not physically write recent post, but perhaps spoke to deb and or Gillian, who "wrote" them as being his ideas/sentiments, thus the reason for grammatical errors. Don't know this to be true, conjecture on my part.. food 4 thought.

Jerome Daly, a Minnesota attorney, was Defendant in a foreclosure case brought against him by The First National Bank of Montgomery heard in a trial by jury in Credit River Township, Scott County, Minnesota December 7, 1968 with Justice Martin V. Mahoney presiding. Prosecution’s main witness was Bank President Lawrence V. Morgan; Jerome Daly defended himself.
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 as consideration he put up his property and asserted that the bank provided no consideration but merely created money out of thin air! 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. Judge Mahoney was heard to say, “That sounds like fraud to me.” The bank went on to claim that Defendant Daly accepted the ledger book credit and by paying for years, waived his right to complain about the consideration and was legally estopped from doing so. The jury unanimously found for the Defendant, Jerome Daly. Justice Mahoney’s Judgment and Decree contain these major points:
• The Plaintiff (the bank) was not entitled to recover the possession of [property].
• Because there was no lawful consideration the mortgage was Null and Void.
• The Bank parted with absolutely nothing except a little ink.
• The Plaintiff had no right, title, interest or lien on the property.
• Defendant is awarded costs…
In his Memorandum Justice Mahoney went on to say, “The jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. …. 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…. Plaintiff’s act of creating credit is not authorized by the Constitution and Laws of United States, is unconstitutional and void, and is not lawful consideration in the eyes of the Law to support any thing [sic] or upon which any lawful rights can be built…. It has never been doubted that a Note given on a Consideration which is prohibited by law is void… ”
The hearing held Jan. 22, 1969 for purposes of making Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law saw no Bank representative in attendance. The following 12 points are quoted in part directly from Justice Mahoney’s report (http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/C...)...
• “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.
• 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 existence [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.
• 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 … for the cost of printing only.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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 on redemption.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• No rights can be acquired by fraud. The Federal Reserve Notes are acquired thru [sic] the use of unconstitutional statutes and fraud.”
Justice Mahoney’s decree still stands and has not been challenged or overturned to this very day, and we herein declare it both pertinent and applicable law in this case .

within 6 months of this decision Justice Martin Mahoney had died by drowning while fishing … seems rather “fishy” to me.

the reason ALL CAPS NAMES (ACN) are used in COURT cases for people is to trick one into COURT's jurisdiction by admitting to the ACN, which is a dead corpse fiction they've created so they (who are also dead corpse fictions) can do commerce with us LIVE-ing people, which they cannot otherwise interact with, absent our "consent", which consent one gives by answering to or admitting is one's NAME.

Rundle V. DELAWARE & RARITAN CANAL COMPANY, 55 U. S. 80, "A CORPORATION cannot sue or otherwise contend with a living natural man or woman."

FRom mary croft blog, 2/2012 NAME game: "... Maybe ‘fraud’ is the only ‘charge’ they can use against us and, conveniently, no one ever says so. ... Remember, we are never, ever charged with any ‘crime’ UNTIL we admit to being the Name. It is always the name which is charged and, if we claim to BE that, then it is we who are charged. Where we thought that the name was only the means they ‘use’ to charge us, it now seems that admitting to the name might just be the crime itself. Everything after that is just the proverbial “dog and pony show”, i.e.: meaningless."

“admitting to the name might just be the crime itself” – in deed it IS per 18 USC 1341, 1342 a felony; NAME is NOT ours it’s theirs! We do not want to claim ownership of NAME or admit to NAME, as it is fictitious dead corpse & we are LIVE BE’ings. “the enemy has persecuted my soul… made me dwell in darkness, Like those… dead.” Psalms 143:3; also see verses 9-12.

7freemom, that case pretty much sums up the whole banana in terms of all of us being fictitious dead corpses. Judge Dale remarks that every single lawyer and judge in "the system" know this and by being admitted to "the bar" agree never to divulge this information to all us dead corpses. They are also bound from disclosing this information in their own defense in any legal situation because "what's good for the goose is good for the gander," but they are free to take advantage of all the dead corpses they can manage to fool throughout their entire bar membership! I worked as a paralegal for 8 years and I never knew any of this, but I also never went to law school, which we should really call "Lie School." Perhaps Judge Dale finally felt some guilt about all the people he put in prison for lighting a doobie or whose homes he help to steal. That's my guess, and it explains why he "hides" in plain view. He's a whistleblower and so I will respect that, although that does not absolve him or any crap lawyer from perpetrating this lie on their fellow human beings, including their family, friends, and the people they are paid to represent. Bugger them all. You will note in all this OPPT stuff, and in general, the lawyers have gotten very quiet. Their little game is up and they know it.