Edward E. Slingsby = possible "CtCer"

[Famspear]

Here's another case involving a possible follower of Pete Hendrickson's "Cracking the Code" scam:

Edward E. Slingsby v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2011-130, Docket # 30935-09 (June 13, 2011).

Mr. Slingsby was a pro se litigant. From the Tax Court opinion handed down today, June 13th:

In 2007 petitioner worked for Skokie Motor Sales, Inc. (Skokie). Skokie reported on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, that it had paid $28,598 in wages to petitioner in 2007 and had withheld Federal income tax. In addition, Interactive Brokers, L.L.C. (Interactive), petitioner’s investment broker, reported on Form 1099-DIV, Dividends and Distributions, that it had paid $57 in qualified dividends to petitioner in 2007. Petitioner does not dispute receiving these payments.

[ . . . ]

Petitioner does not dispute receiving the wage and dividend income determined by respondent and shown in the notice of deficiency. Rather, petitioner argues, inter alia, that earnings he received from his employer for performing services are not taxable because Skokie is not a trade or business paying wages as contemplated by Congress and that the Form W-2 Skokie issued is invalid as a matter of law....

As always in these kinds of cases, the taxpayer lost. However, the IRS did not ask for imposition of a section 6673 penalty, and the Court did not impose one, letting Mr. Slingsby off with a warning.

[LPC]

They let him off with a warning? It was his third loss in Tax Court, and all three cases were based on frivolous arguments.

See viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6756 for a discussion of his losses and the two cases that were then still pending. The decision entered today was in No. 030935-09. The fourth case, No. 11031-10, ended with a stipulated decision.

[Harvester]

Thanks Larry, you have an email for Slingsby? Someone should tell him about lawful money, the final piece of the puzzle; the remedy from central banking codified at Title 12 § 411.




Approved as this post doesn't seem to be abusive, just stupid as usual --Dr Pepper

[Doktor Avalanche]

Thanks Larry, you have an email for Slingsby? Someone should tell him about lawful money, the final piece of the puzzle; the remedy from central banking codified at Title 12 § 411.




Approved as this post doesn't seem to be abusive, just stupid as usual --Dr Pepper

"Lawful money"?

Hey, Harvey, if you think your money's not good anymore send it to me - I'll make sure it's properly disposed of.

[Pottapaug1938]

Thanks Larry, you have an email for Slingsby? Someone should tell him about lawful money, the final piece of the puzzle; the remedy from central banking codified at Title 12 § 411.

Approved as this post doesn't seem to be abusive, just stupid as usual --Dr Pepper

Harvery, I don't remember if it was here or somewhere else, but there was a piece talking about how you could redeem FRNs in "lawful money" because the FRNs didn't have the same monetary status as gold or silver certificates. With the changes in the laws and the abolition of gold and silver certificates, "redemption" of FRNs simply means that you can exchange them for other FRNs, or for current U.S. coinage. 12 USC section 411 is, essentially, obsolete.

[LandofOz]

Is this the case that these tax protestors use to justify all this nonsense on FRNs - First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota v. Jerome Daley? I found a lot of info on this case but find it hard to understand the decision, any of you lawyers want to help me out with this? I found this link and read through the decision here and in a few other places.

http://usa-the-republic.com/banks/bank_1.html

I especially like the note attached to the bottom of this page - "The Defendant, (Attorney) Jerome Daley, shortly after the above Court declared the above decision, again brought the issue of the Federal Reserve Notes before the Courts. On Appeal to a Federal Court; the Federal Judicial Officers publicly ridiculed Mr. Daley for challenging the validity of the Notes of the Federal Reserve Bank and had Mr. Daley "disbarred"; from practicing law (United States v. Jerome Daly, 481 F.2d. 28). This "act" of our Federal Judicial Officers to "disbar" a fellow member of the "Bar" for questioning the validity of the monetary system of the United States raises the question as to who the Federal Judicial Officers are employed by? It is obvious that they are employed by the International Banking Cartels; NOT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES."

What that note fails to mention is that Daley was a known TPer and had failed to file in 1967 and 1968, which is more likely one of the reasons he was disbarred along with the fact that he tried to destroy the U.S. economic system. I know the decision was overturned but I am having a hard time finding the case that overturned it. Can one of you nice law folk point me in the right direction? I'm doing research on the sovrun movement and where it began so any help on this would be appreciated. I've looked through the U.S. code and found the title 12.411 entry and also Art 1, Sec. 10 of the Constitution (I've sent that to my Con Law professor to see if she can explain that entry a little better to me). I'm sure this issue has been raised a number of times since this case in 1968-69, so whats the ultimate ruling (as if that isn't obvious since we still use "paper" money) and where can I find it?

[jg]

All proceedings in the justice court in the underlying matter were declared a nullity in Zurn v. Northwestern National Bank, 284 Minn. 573, 170 N.W.2d 600 (1969). The same happened in another case brought by Jerome Daly, Daly v. Savage State Bank, 285 Minn. 503, 171 N.W.2d 218 (1969).

See http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/creditriver.html and links to cases.

(Btw, I found this in about three minutes as a link on Wikipedia for Daly)

[Famspear]

This is the so-called "Credit River" case. The following is adapted from the Wikipedia article on the case (some of which I wrote):

First National Bank of Montgomery v. Jerome Daly, Dec. 9, 1968 (Justice Court, Credit River Township, Scott County, Minnesota), also known as the Credit River Case, was a case tried before a Justice of the Peace in Minnesota in 1968. The decision in that case is sometimes cited by opponents of the United States banking system.

The trial

An attorney named Jerome Daly was a defendant in a civil case in Credit River Township, Scott County, Minnesota, heard on December 9, 1968. The plaintiff was the First National Bank of Montgomery, which had foreclosed on Daly's property for nonpayment of the mortgage, and was seeking to evict him from the property.

Daly based his defense on the argument that the bank had not actually loaned him any money but had simply created credit on its books. Daly argued that the bank had thus not given him anything of value and was not entitled to the property that secured the loan. The jury and the justice of the peace, Martin V. Mahoney, agreed with this argument. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and the Justice of the Peace declared that the mortgage was “null and void” and that the bank was not entitled to possession of the property.

The Justice admitted in his order that his decision might run counter to provisions in the Minnesota Constitution and some Minnesota statutes, but contended that such provisions were “repugnant” to the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights in the Minnesota Constitution.

The result

The immediate effect of the decision was that Daly did not have to repay the mortgage or relinquish the property. The case and its reasoning have subsequently been cited as nullifying the U.S. banking system and in particular the practice of fractional-reserve banking.

However, the bank appealed the next day, and the decision was ultimately nullified on the grounds that a Justice of the Peace did not have the power to make such a ruling.

Because the decision was nullified, the case has no value as legal precedent. However, it is still cited by groups who support a government owned central bank or oppose the Federal Reserve System; such groups argue the case demonstrates that the Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional. A U.S. District Court decision in Utah in 2008 mentioned half a dozen such citations, noting that similar arguments have "repeatedly been dismissed by the courts as baseless" and that "courts around the country have repeatedly dismissed efforts to void loans based on similar assertions." See Tuttle v. Chase Home Finance, LLC et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Oct. 26, 2008, case no. 2:08-CV-574-DB.

Jerome Daly's other attacks on the banking system

The defendant, Jerome Daly, was a longtime tax protester. See United States v. Daly, 481 F.2d 28, 73-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9574 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1064, 94 S. Ct. 571 (1973). He was convicted of willfully failing to file federal income tax returns for the years 1967 and 1968. In rejecting his appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit noted: "Defendant's fourth contention involves his seemingly incessant attack against the federal reserve and monetary system of the United States. His apparent thesis is that the only 'Legal Tender Dollars' are those which contain a mixture of gold and silver and that only those dollars may be constitutionally taxed. This contention is clearly frivolous." Id. Daly had been an attorney, but was later disbarred by a decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court. In re Daly, 291 Minn. 488, 189 N.W.2d 176 (1971) (per curiam).

[LandofOz]

Thank you jg and famspear!

[Famspear]

You're welcome.

And this is from the Minnesota Supreme Court decision upholding the disbarment of Jerome Daly (emphasis added; footnotes not reproduced):

As covered in detail in In re Daly, supra, respondent, without justifiable explanation or excuse, intentionally and defiantly disregarded an order of this court prohibiting him and a justice of the peace from further proceedings in a declaratory judgment action, then pending before the justice of the peace, which was obviously, and for numerous reasons outlined in our decision, beyond the limits of jurisdiction of a justice of the peace.

[ . . . ]

The ultimate factual findings of the referee, supported by specific and detailed instances and ample evidence, are, in essence, that respondent has "persistently and perniciously" used his position as a licensed attorney, for himself and as counsel for others, to subvert the processes of justice by (1) initiating unfounded lawsuits for the purposes of harassing numerous named banking institutions, public officials, and private persons, and to avoid legal obligations of himself and his clients, thereby depriving parties involved of property to which they were lawfully entitled, causing them very substantial expense, and occupying the time and efforts of courts in nearly all levels of jurisdiction; (2) by advancing in such cases by "immaterial and unnecessarily inflammatory" allegations his personal theory of the unconstitutionality of the monetary system of the United States; (3) by continuing to espouse his theory in spite of repeated rulings by courts of record that his contentions are untenable and unfounded and despite an order of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota restraining him from relitigating the issue, and in contemptuous disregard thereof without seeking appeal of the lower court ruling and orders; (4) by employing tactics in his professional activities deliberately intended to delay the timely and orderly disposition of cases such as failing to appear for hearings and trial, indiscriminately filing affidavits of prejudice, often containing scandalous accusations, against numerous judges; abusing the assertion of the attorney-client privilege; conspiring to conceal and divert assets under the control of a court; and willfully refusing to follow lawful rulings and orders of the courts of the United States and of this state.

[ . . . ]

No useful purpose would appear to be served by repeating the detail of the instances supporting the foregoing summary of ultimate findings, all of which are adopted as the basis for respondent's removal from practice [of law]. It should be noted, however, that respondent's persistent and continuing attacks on our national monetary system can hardly be regarded as zealous advocacy or a good-faith effort to test the validity of repeated decisions of courts of record. For, as found by the referee, up to the time of his findings and recommendations respondent had avoided payment of any Federal income tax for 1965 and subsequent years on the asserted ground that he has not received gold and silver coin and, therefore, had no earnings that were taxable. Also, he has taken personal advantages of the system he attacks by borrowing money from a bank to purchase lakeside property, only to subsequently defeat the bank's repossession after mortgage foreclosure by taking the position that the bank's extension of credit was unlawful, obligating him neither to pay the debt nor to surrender possession following expiration of the time to redeem. As detailed in the referee's finding, we regard the tactics employed by respondent in the unlawful detainer proceedings before the justice of the peace as not only unprofessional but reprehensible.

--from In re Daly, 189 N.W.2d 176 (Minn. 1971) (per curiam), at:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 62&scilh=0

[iplawyer]

What I don't understand is why there is so much discussion of a Justice of the Peace stupid decision. This has gone on for decades.

[Quixote]

What I don't understand is why there is so much discussion of a Justice of the Peace stupid decision. This has gone on for decades.

Because the JP held for the sov'run. If you ignore that it was overturned on appeal, it's a sov'run win. And it's their only win. In some sov'run circles, it is already cited as a Supreme Court case. A hundred years from now, it will be cited as holy writ. Credit River will be with us as long as there are mortgages.

[notorial dissent]

What I don't understand is why there is so much discussion of a Justice of the Peace stupid decision. This has gone on for decades.

For the very simple reason that it agrees with their fantasy.

Credit River, is / was, any way you want to look at it, a crock.

Mahoney was JP, and JP’s in MN had at the very best very limited authority, he was basically a dog pound judge, the only thing he could really do was refer anything more complicated to the real court at the county level. He certainly didn’t have the authority to empanel a jury for any purpose, and he could not overturn a law, and he in fact broke the law when he refused to rightly forward the mortgage case to the proper court when he refused to sign the order.

Mahoney’s decision if he actually had anything to do with it, was a nullity from the very beginning as he had no authority to have issued it, and it was certainly a nullity after the MN Supreme Court got done and declared it all null and void. They would have removed him for cause from his position for his actions had he not had the good grace to drop over dead before they could act.

Daley was shortly after this disbarred for his actions here, as well as others. Basically he was disbarred for fraud when all is said and done.

[Omne]

Mahoney’s decision if he actually had anything to do with it,

Daly wrote it and Mahoney signed it. Daly had a fairly distinctive writing style and it's obvious if you read the decision and a copy of his Riders to Judgment pamphlet.

Between Daly and William Drexler (Life Science Church) they managed to get the JPs abolished in Minnesota. Drexler was a JP for Ramsey County and kept issuing arrest warrants for various State officials. Drexler also ended up getting disbarred for assisting a divorce client commit fraud amongst other things.

Then there's Daly's drug conviction.....

[notorial dissent]

I had always pretty well assumed that Daly was the one responsible for that nonsense, as I was never sure that Mahoney could string a coherent sentence together.