Minnesota Judge Holds Federal Reserve Act Unconstitutional and Void

While I applaud the trial court's ruling - it don't mean jack. Decisions of the lowest court (i.e, before any appeal is taken) are not binding precedent on any other court. In fact, the same judge could rule the exact opposite in another case and there would be no conflict between the two because they are both equally precedent-less.

This does not mean, however, that the arguments raised by the prevailing party cannot be tried by others. They just need to be followed through on up the levels of the court system. - where they will meet a mountain of opposite precedent. (See below) Not trying to rain on your parade - just don't want the uninformed to be misled.

Also, from you l ink - see this:

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).

People may read the headline of this thread - and think something which is not entirely the case - yes - technically the state court judge did hold that - but since its completely worthless in a legal sense - dont raise false hopes. Peace -

windycityatty