Addendum - Could this be possible?

beechdalegrant

As far as i can gather our Debt Laws do not differ much from British or American Law and have not been changed since the 1940's.

So could it be possible for people to fight the banks in the same way as "Jerome Daly" did in a US court in Minnesota.

He succesfully fought a foreclosure case against the bank that gave him his loan.
His argument was that the mortgage contract required both parties, being he and the bank, each put up a legitimate form of property for the exchange. In legal language, this is called "consideration".

Mr. Daly explained that the money was, in fact, not the property of the bank, for it was created out of nothing as soon as the loan agreement was signed. In other words, the money doesn't come out of any of their existing assets. The bank is simply inventing it, putting up nothing of its own except for a theoretical liability on paper.

As the court case progressed, the banks president, Mr. Morgan, took the stand, and in the judge's personal memorandum, he recalled that "The Plaintiff (bank's president) admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank…did create the…money and credit upon its books by bookkeeping entry…the money and credit first came into existence when they created it…Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States law or statute existed which gave him the right to do this…a lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the note." "The jury found that there was no lawful consideration and I agree" He also poetically added, " Only God can create something of value out of nothing"

And upon that revelation, the court rejected the bank's claim for foreclosure and Daly kept his home.

The implications of this court decision are immense, for every time you borrow money from a bank, whether it is a mortgage loan or a credit card charge, the money given to you is not only counterfeit, it is an illegitimate form of consideration and hence voids the contract to repay… for the bank never had the money as property to begin with.

Please note, I have no legal backround and honestly do not know if this would stand up in an Irish court of law, but I am very curious to hear any comments on this.

Banned Account

The case was unseccessful on appeal - the attorney (who was also the client) Jerome Daly was disbarred a while afterwards.

So no.

seamus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Montgomery_vs_Jerome_Daly

The theory is there, but it has no basis really. The Justice of the Peace who presided over the case had no legal background (or at least was not required to have one) and is really only authorised to preside and make judgement in regard to local civil actions, and not make judgements in relation to national or constitutional issues.

For the assertion to have any merit in Ireland, someone would need to take a test case in Ireland on the same basis.

Banned Account

seamus wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Montgomery_vs_Jerome_Daly

The theory is there, but it has no basis really. The Justice of the Peace who presided over the case had no legal background (or at least was not required to have one) and is really only authorised to preside and make judgement in regard to local civil actions, and not make judgements in relation to national or constitutional issues.

For the assertion to have any merit in Ireland, someone would need to take a test case in Ireland on the same basis.

Added to that the fact that there are numerous contract law cases showing that consideration does not need to have a monetary value - a promise to do something at a later date is sufficient. I am sure the banks would argue that the man hours put into the loan would be sufficient even if a loony judge agreed on the money front.