Mario Kenny

Entries from May 2009

Foreclosure

May 30, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Contesting a Foreclosure

Because the right of redemption is an equitable right, foreclosure is an action in equity. In order to keep the right of redemption the debtor can ask an equity court for an injunction. If repossession is imminent the debtor would need to seek a temporary restraining order. However, the debtor may have to post a bond in the amount of the debt. This would protect the creditor if the attempt to stop foreclosure were a naked attempt to cheat the lender and skip on the debt.

A debtor may also challenge the validity of the debt in a claim against the bank in order to stop the foreclosure and sue for damages. In a foreclosure proceeding, the lender bears the burden of proving that there was a valid debt. There is case law to support the debtor’s case: First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly, 1969, in the Justice Court State of Minnesota the Judge ruled in favor of the debtor on December 9, 1968: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 1.That the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota according to the Plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office. 2.That because of failure of a lawful consideration the Note and Mortgage dated May 8, 1964 are null and void. 3.That the Sheriff’s sale of the above described premises held on June 26, 1967 is null and void, of no effect.That because of failure of a lawful consideration the Note and Mortgage dated May 8, 1964 are null and void.

Foreclosure is the legal and professional proceeding in which a mortgagee, or other lienholder, usually a lender, obtains a court ordered termination of a mortgagor’s equitable right of redemption. Usually a lender obtains a security interest from a borrower who mortgages or pledges an asset like a house to secure the loan. If the borrower defaults and the lender tries to repossess the property, courts of equity can grant the borrower the equitable right of redemption if the borrower repays the debt. While this equitable right exists, the lender cannot be sure that it can successfully repossess the property, thus the lender seeks to foreclose the equitable right of redemption. Other lienholders can also foreclose the owner’s right of redemption for other debts, such as for overdue taxes, unpaid contractors’ bills or overdue HOA dues or assessments.

The foreclosure process as applied to residential mortgage loans is a bank or other secured creditor selling or repossessing a parcel of real property (immovable property) after the owner has failed to comply with an agreement between the lender and borrower called a “mortgage” or “deed of trust”. Commonly, the violation of the mortgage is a default in payment of a promissory note, secured by a lien on the property. When the process is complete, the lender can sell the property and keep the proceeds to pay off its mortgage and any legal costs, and it is typically said that “the lender has foreclosed its mortgage or lien”. If the promissory note was made with a recourse clause then if the sale does not bring enough to pay the existing balance of principal and fees the mortgagee can file a claim for a deficiency judgement.

Categories: Foreclosure
Tagged:

http://www.ambac.com/aboutus.html

May 30, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Ambac Financial Group, Inc. is a holding company whose affiliates provide financial guarantees and financial services to clients in both the public and private sectors around the world. Ambac’s principal operating subsidiary, Ambac Assurance Corporation, a guarantor of public finance and structured finance obligations. The Ambac Assurance financial guarantee is an unconditional and irrevocable pledge that investors will receive principal and interest payments in full and on time should the issuer of an Ambac-insured security default. Our valuable financial guarantee reduces financing costs for issuers, facilitates the structuring and distribution of securities by investment bankers and improves liquidity for investors.

History
2008 David W. Wallis named President and Chief Executive Officer succeeding Michael A. Callen who will remain in his position as Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors.

Michael A. Callen named Chairman and interim Chief Executive Officer succeeding Robert J. Genader.

2007 Ambac opens new office in Mexico City, Mexico as part of Ambac’s ongoing globalization initiative.

2006 Ambac announces its new office in Milan, Italy. This new office is part of Ambac’s ongoing globalization initiative.

2004 Robert J. Genader named CEO. Phillip B. Lassiter continues to serve as Chairman of the Board of Directors

2003 Phillip B. Lassiter announces intention to retire as CEO effective January 2004.

2001 Ambac opens new Tokyo office with alliance partner Yasuda Kasai Financial Guarantee Co., Ltd, Japan’s first AAA-rated monoline financial guarantor. Located in Otemachi Financial Center, the office will further develop opportunities in Japan.

Ambac’s claims-paying resources surpass $6 billion.

Ambac announces its new office in Sydney, Australia. This new office is part of Ambac’s ongoing globalization initiative.

2000 Ambac and MBIA dissolve the joint venture they established in 1995 but continue their reinsurance relationship.

Ambac is included in the S&P 500. This Standard & Poor’s global index is widely regarded as the standard for measuring large-cap US stock market performance and includes a “representative sample of leading companies in leading industries.”

1998 Ambac’s claims-paying resources exceed $4 billion.

1997 Ambac Inc. changes its name to Ambac Financial Group, Inc. and Ambac Indemnity, Inc. becomes Ambac Assurance. Ambac sells a subsidiary, HCIA.

Ambac acquires Construction Loan Insurance Company (Connie Lee), a privately-owned financial guarantee company.

1996 Ambac reaches milestone: 25 years as founder of the financial guarantee industry.

Ambac acquires Cadre Financial Services, Inc., a leader in short-term cash management for school districts and other public entities.

1995 Reflecting the increasing globalization of the financial guarantee business, Ambac forms a joint venture with MBIA for reinsurance and marketing purposes.

1994 Fitch Investors Service rates Ambac AAA. Orange County, California declares bankruptcy, underscoring, once again, the value of bond insurance. Specialized Finance Division insures its first MBS and ABS transactions. Financial Management Services Division introduces municipal interest rate swap products.

1993 Ambac forms the Specialized Finance Division to serve the growing market for guarantees on asset-backed and structured issues.

1992 Citibank divests its remaining 49% ownership stake in Ambac in a second equity offering. Ambac forms a Financial Services Division to broaden its product line for municipal customers and introduces investment contract products. The percent of “insured” municipal issues tops 30% of total new volume.

1991 Ambac’s parent company, Ambac Inc., becomes a publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) with a July initial public offering when Citibank sells 51% controlling interest in the Company. Ambac’s initial stock price is $6.67 per share. Phillip B. Lassiter becomes Ambac’s Chairman and CEO.

1990 Net premiums written surpass $100 million.

1988 Market penetration of bond insurance exceeds 25% of total new issues.

1987 Moody’s rates Ambac Aaa.

1985 Citibank acquires majority control of Ambac and provides it with additional capital. Municipal bond issuance reaches a frenetic pace in advance of the deadline of the Tax Reform Act of 1986—$207 billion in long-term municipal debt is issued in 1985, more than twice the amount of any previous year.

1983 Baldwin-United enters bankruptcy proceedings. Ambac works to reassure the market of its own financial health and S&P reaffirms Ambac’s AAA rating. Another bond insurance competitor is formed, Financial Guaranty Insurance Co.

In the largest municipal default in history, Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) defaults on $2.25 billion of revenue bonds. In 1984, Ambac begins paying claims on its $25 million WPPSS exposure, reassuring investors and the market of the company’s ability to pay claims. The failure of the WPPSS further reinforces the value of bond insurance.

1982 Baldwin-United purchases MGIC and its subsidiary companies, including Ambac.

1981 Ambac’s underwriting operations move to New York City from Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

1979 Ambac receives a AAA rating from S&P.

1975 Financially strapped New York City announces a moratorium on debt issues. This focuses attention on the need for bond insurance, dramatically increasing business for both Ambac and MBIA. The combined marketshare of Ambac and MBIA is just 1.8% of municipal bonds issued in 1975.

1974 Ambac’s first competitor, Municipal Bond Insurance Association (MBIA), formed as a consortium of four major insurance companies, receives a AAA rating from Standard & Poor’s.

1971 American Municipal Bond Assurance Corporation (Ambac) is founded in Milwaukee, Wisconsin as a subsidiary of MGIC Investment Corp. Ambac begins with $6 million in initial capital and receives a AA rating from Standard & Poor’s (S&P). Ambac insures its first issue, a $650,000 general obligation bond for The Greater Juneau Borough (Alaska) Medical Arts Building Company. The issue funds construction of a medical arts building and a sewage treatment facility adjacent to the local hospital.

Corporate Contributions and Matching Gifts

Ambac operates a Corporate Contribution program that supports the philanthropic focus of Ambac. Additionally, the company operates a Matching Gifts program that supports the charitable causes important to our employees. In 2008, Ambac contributed more than $625,000 through these programs.

Corporate Contributions Insuring a Better Future

Ambac’s primary philanthropic focus is educational and community services that benefit young people. We strongly believe that providing young people the opportunity to obtain knowledge, skills and self-confidence, as well as educational and occupational opportunities, will benefit them, our communities and society as a whole.

Preserving and promoting the arts and history are also important to enhancing our lives, our communities and our future. In support of this, Ambac donates a portion of its charitable giving to cultural institutions with active educational programs for young people.

Ambac’s Corporate Contributions Program, contributed to a wide variety of worthy causes and organizations in 2008, including the following:

The Children’s Village (CV)

Ambac is proud to be a corporate sponsor of The Children’s Village, a dynamic residential and community-based service for some of New York’s most vulnerable youth. Ambac gave seed money and has provided ongoing funding for the Ambac Financial Group Youth Technology Network. Ambac also supports the Books for Boys Program and plays a very active role in CV’s annual fundraising event.

MyGoodDeed.org

A corporate sponsor since the organization’s beginning in 2003. Ambac is also a proud support of MyGoodDeed. Theirs is an organization working to establish 9/11 as a National Day of Service and remembrance. Their mission is to honor the lives of the thousands who were killed or injured on 9/11 to pay tribute to the many who aided in the rescue and recovery efforts, and to rekindle the remarkable spirit of unity and services that existed in the days following the tragedy.

Request Guidelines:

Letters of request are accepted throughout the year and should include the following information: a description of the organization; its mission; the population served and any specific program requests; budget information and other material supporting a statement of need; and timing considerations.

Please send all inquiries to:

Chair – Corporate Contributions Committee
Ambac Financial Group, Inc.
One State Street Plaza – 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004

Matching Gifts Program

Ambac’s Matching Gifts Program benefits those charitable organizations that are most important to our employees. Through this initiative, Ambac matches, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, each eligible employee’s contributions to qualified tax-exempt charitable organizations. Ambac matches up to $20,000 per employee each year. The minimum gift eligible for matching is $100.

In 2008, Ambac provided matching contributions of nearly $350,000 to hundreds of charitable organizations. Employees throughout the company participated in the program, thereby leveraging their efforts to aid the causes and institutions that are most important to them.

2009 Corporate Contributions Committee:

Susan Oehrig- Chair, Jessie Adams, Gregg Bienstock, Don Farrell, and Louise Minford.

Click here for a list of Corporate Contribution & Matching Gift Recipients

It is the policy of Ambac not to fund political campaigns or organizations with political or fraternal affiliations.

Premier Values

People

Our greatest assets are the individuals who serve our constituencies. We demonstrate by our behavior and actions that our people, their skills, development and motivation “make the difference” to give us a competitive edge in the marketplace.

Risk Management

We recognize that excellence in managing risk is central to our business and we evidence that commitment through exacting standards and professionalism in all aspects of the risk management process.

Excellence

We understand that our success means earning client respect and exceeding client expectations. We strive to achieve excellence in every task.

Meritocracy

We seek out and retain the best talent, providing our people with opportunities to grow and share in our success.

Innovation

We welcome new insights, new ideas and fresh perspectives — we value strategic thinking and are not afraid of change, recognizing that continuous innovation is an essential element of success for all companies in all industries.

Earnings/Return

Ambac understands that long-term earnings growth and attractive returns on capital are of vital importance to our stockholders and other constituents.

Reputation

Ambac maintains an environment where integrity and honesty are fundamental principles of conduct. Our reputation is a franchise that must never be compromised.

Our People

Because our people create Ambac’s success, we offer attractive compensation and competitive benefits packages. We seek out talented people with a diversity of backgrounds and skills, ready to contribute and take responsibility for their efforts. The passion for excellence and innovation that motivates the Ambac team ensures an exciting future for our company. Some of the benefits available to our employees include:

Savings Incentive Plan (401K)
Health Care: Medical, Dental and Prescription
Life Insurance
Accidental Death & Dismemberment
Long- and Short-term Disability
Tuition Reimbursement
Training and Development
Maternity Leave
Health Club Membership Discount

Career Opportunities

Ambac’s professionals are highly motivated individuals seeking to achieve superior results. Relying on teamwork, our integrated business approach creates opportunities for meaningful collaboration among specialists within our organization. Broadly speaking, our professionals work in the following disciplines:

Underwriting

Financial Services

Legal

Risk Management

Investment Management

Financial Controls/Operations/Internal Audit

Technology

Employee Development

Ambac’s continued success requires bright minds and innovative thinkers. We encourage our people to continue their professional growth through training and development opportunities both inside and outside the company. Within Ambac, we continually offer instructor-led sessions on a diversified range of topics and issues integral to the various parts of our business as well as computer-based training opportunities. In addition, we partner with renowned external resources to provide continuing education opportunities. Our benefits package also includes a generous tuition reimbursement program for employees pursuing additional education relating to their Ambac responsibilities.

EEO Statement

Ambac Financial Group, Inc. (“Ambac”) is committed to a work environment in which all individuals are treated with respect and dignity. Each individual has the right to work in a professional atmosphere that promotes equal employment opportunities and prohibits discriminatory practices, including harassment. Therefore, Ambac expects that all relationships among persons in the workplace will be business-like and free of bias, prejudice and harassment.

It is the policy of Ambac to ensure equal employment opportunity without discrimination or harassment on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, citizenship, marital status, sexual orientation or any other characteristic protected by law. Ambac prohibits and will not tolerate any such discrimination or harassment.

If you are interested in career opportunities at Ambac, please send your resume to recruiting@ambac.com or the address below:

Human Resources
Ambac Financial Group, Inc.
One State Street Plaza – 19th Floor
New York, NY 10004

Categories: Uncategorized

http://bwt.jeffotto.com/sr/mario1kenny.php

May 30, 2009 · Leave a Comment

You have been invited by our affiliate Mario Kenny, they may be contacted by Email at malibubooks@gmail.com or by calling 789 274 0527

* You don’t need a new hybrid car to save money now. Our Hydro Assist Fuel Cell is guaranteed to increase your current fuel economy by 50% or more and is available now!
* The Pre Ignition Catalytic Converter is projected to achieve 100+ MPG even in today’s heavy SUVs and will be available soon! Request your no obligation quote here.
* Information on the options available for qualified mechanics to obtain certification in mastering our fuel technologies.
* The International Tesla Electric Companies Free Electricity program offer.
* Browse our entire product line of unique health aids & new technology products shipped worldwide.
* Make some very substantial extra cash by simply referring your relatives, friends and colleagues to our web site. Follow this link for more information on our awesome affiliate program opportunity.

Categories: http://bwt.jeffotto.com/sr/mario1kenny.php
Tagged:

http://www.fights4rights.com/1/daily.php

May 30, 2009 · Leave a Comment

http://www.fights4rights.com/1/daily.php

this is all about Jerome daly cut and paste the link

Categories: http://www.fights4rights.com/1/daily.php

Neil Garfield

May 30, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Posted on September 1, 2008 by livinglies

I SUGGEST THE READER TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT THE COMMENTS SECTIONS UNDER “ABOUT NEIL GARFIELD” AND ELSEWHERE AS POSTED BY MARIO KENNY. HE’S DONE A LOT OF WORK FOR ALL OF US. THANK YOU MARIO. HE SHOWS WHERE THE SEC REPORTING CONTAINS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW, IN SWORN DOCUMENTS. YOU SEE, IF THEY LIE TO THE SEC THEY GO TO JAIL. IF THEY LIE TO YOU, THEY GET RICH.

See also cyruswellstexascase-excellent-verbiage-on-securitization-conspiracy-with-charts-and-causes-of-action

Nobody named Gator Bradshaw should be anything but a lawyer from Florida. He is, and a pretty good thinker. He suggests that the statutes governing title agents and recording, and specifically those making it a crime to fail to record or to use a recorded instrument in an illegal way, provide potentially a silver bullet. It isn’t something that I had considered before, but on reflection it appears that Gator is on to something here. Here is his latest comment and my response to him thus far:

GATOR: Chapter 701 should cover assignment of mortgages just as chapter 517 should cover the notes. That being said though the rest of 701 is silent as to the way a transfer should be conducted 701.041 is illustrative of the legislatures concern in adding an orderly system to the process (arguable for the benefit of title agents) however I intend to argue that it should also apply to all assignments. Especially when there is no documentation that the entity that is bringing the action is the proper party. If they are not named in the mortgage then there should be, recorded, a record of the transfer so that the requirement of chapter 701.04 can be met.
I will give a more lengthy explanation later when I have an opportunity to draft it. I realize that this is as new idea but sometimes new ground needs to be plowed. The worst thing that can happen is for the court to tell me no. But I think that if I can argue that this interpretation is necessary to allow some minimum notice to the home owner I may find a sympathetic ear. Just a thought.

Gator Bradshaw

NEIL: I agree with that. And it does add to what I have developed so far. So you are creating a statutory duty to record everything that goes on with the mortgage note because everything that happens to it, produces an effect on the enforcement or enforceability of the mortgage. You are echoing the issue that numerous scholars and academics have raised, as an aside, as to whether mortgage notes were EVER meant to be negotiable instruments at all. Your proposition also raises the level of credibility of the argument in the Creighton Law Journal that there ought not to be a holder in due course, although their argument is a bit twisted and the conclusions obscure.

Perhaps their meaning is that their ought not to be consideration of the status of the holder — in which case your proposition goes from possible or probable to mandatory — i.e., if any holder can enforce the note and foreclose the mortgage, then the original borrower once sued should not be able to be sued again by someone else making a claim through the chain of title even if they are a bona fide purchaser for value (without notice of fraud, statutory violations or other irregularities at the loan closing) and thus a holder in due course. And whoever gets title from either a foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure or short sale, should be able to get title insurance without exceptions for whatever happened in the securitization process.

Your proposition is supported by and lends support in a positive circular way to the notion that the borrower and subsequent title holders of the property or the mortgage (which is an interest in property) is/are entitled to full disclosure and notice, by virtue of state property law, TILA and fiduciary responsibilities of the lender to the borrower and the same fiduciary duties assumed by the Trustee(s) involved — i.e., (Deed Trustee in non-judicial states and perhaps the Pool Trustee of the mortgage aggregator). What I think you are zeroing in on here, Gator, is that the borrower was entitled and continues to be entitled to know who it is that he is doing business with. Clearly an attempt is being made here through slight of hand to distract us from the fiduciary duties of the “lender” and the duties on all participants at closing (title agent, appraiser, mortgage broker, real estate broker, seller etc.) who had knowledge or who come into the knowledge that things were not as they appeared at closing. The idea is to get us to look at the risk of loss rather than the duties of disclosure and fair dealing.

As for criminalization of the conduct, there are statutes in Florida and elsewhere that specifically provide for civil remedies for victims of criminal acts. Thus damages would obtain. However the greater strength of your proposition, as it appears to me, is that the title agent and the lender were under a statutory duty to “report” by way of recording, all transactions relating to the mortgage note. That duty would run all the way up the chain of securitization. Thus when AMBAC was paid a premium to insure the revenue or the principal of the note, this should have been disclosed — something obviously nobody upstream wanted as it would be a disincentive to the borrower to make the payment. The same would hold true for cross guarantees and credit default swaps or other options, agreements or additional derivative instruments that spread the risk of loss to third parties upon payment and receipt of fees generated out of the single transaction wherein the investor in asset backed securities was the source of the loan and all expenses associated with the loan, which would include those fees paid to offset risk of loss, fees paid to perform the closing, and fees paid for pooling, collateralization and issuance of asset backed securities etc..

And then of course, it occurs to me, the question might evolve into the use of proceeds from the investor that overfunded and overcollateralized this and other loans. If the criminal act in the first instance created the start of the chain of events, then the extra money that went as profit into the seller of the securities might also be criminal, perhaps theft.

I would like very much for you to expand upon this and submit an article to the Blog on this issue.

Categories: Mario Kenny and Neil garfield
Tagged:

THE CREDIT RIVER DECISION

May 30, 2009 · Leave a Comment

THE CREDIT RIVER DECISION

INTRODUCTION

A Minnesota Trial Court’s decision holding the Federal Reserve Act unconstitutional and VOID; holding the National Banking Act unconstitutional and VOID; declaring a mortgage acquired by the First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota in the regular course of its business, along with the foreclosure and the sheriff’s sale, to be VOID.

http://worldnewsstand.net/money/mahoney-introduction.html

THE CREDIT RIVER DECISION

INTRODUCTION

A Minnesota Trial Court’s decision holding the Federal Reserve Act unconstitutional and VOID; holding the National Banking Act unconstitutional and VOID; declaring a mortgage acquired by the First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota in the regular course of its business, along with the foreclosure and the sheriff’s sale, to be VOID.

This decision, which is legally sound, has the effect of declaring all private mortgages on real and personal property, and all U.S. and State bonds held by the Federal Reserve, National and State Banks to be null and VOID. This amounts to an emancipation of this nation from personal, national and State debt purportedly owed to this banking system. Every True American owes it to himself/herself, to his or her country, and to the people of the world for that matter, to study this decision very carefully and to understand it, for upon it hangs the question of freedom or slavery.

A WORD FROM AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE WHO KNEW AND WORKED WITH JUSTICE MARTIN V. MAHONEY, STATE OF MINNESOTA, ABOUT THE CASE.

The “Credit River Decision” handed down by a jury of 12 on a cold day in December, in the Credit River Township Hall, was an experience that I’ll never forget.

The Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court had phoned me a week before the trial and asked me if I would be an associate justice in assisting Justice Martin V. Mahoney since he had never handled a jury trial before. I accepted, and it took me two hours to get my car running in the 22 below zero weather.

I got to the court room about 30 minutes before trial, and helped get the wood stove going, since the trial was being held in an unheated store room of a general store. This was the first time I met Justice Mahoney, and I was impressed with his no nonsense manner of handling matters before him. My OB was to help pick the jury, and to keep Jerome Daly and the attorney representing the Bank of Montgomery from engaging in a fist fight. The court room was highly charged, and the Jury was all business.

The banker testified about the mortgage loan given to Jerome Daly, but then Daly cross examined the banker about the creating of money “out of thin air,” and the banker admitted that this was standard banking practice. When Justice Mahoney heard the banker testify that he could “create money out of thin air,” Mahoney said, “It sounds like fraud to me.” I looked at the faces of the jurors, and they were all agreeing with Mahoney by shaking their heads and by the looks on their faces.

I must admit that up until that point, I really didn’t believe Jerome’s theory, and thought he was making this up. After I heard the testimony of the banker, my mouth had dropped open in shock, and I was in complete disbelief. There was no doubt in my mind that the Jury would find for Daly.

Jerome Daly had taken on the banks, the Federal Reserve Banking System, and the money lenders, and had won.

It is now twenty eight years since this “Landmark Decision,” and Justice Mahoney is quoted more often than any Supreme Court justice ever was. The money boys that run the “private Federal Reserve Bank” soon got back at Mahoney by poisoning him in what appeared to have been a fishing boat accident (but with his body pumped full of poison) in June of 1969, less than 6 months later.

Both Jerome Daly and Justice Martin V. Mahoney are truly the greatest men that I have ever had the pleasure to meet. The Credit River Decision was and still is the most important legal decision ever decided by a Jury.

Bill Drexler

Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged:

Jerome Daly, Judge Mahony & the Credit River Decision

May 30, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Jerome Daly, Judge Mahony & the Credit River Decision

From: JDre105140@aol.com
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:56:49 EDT
Subject: Fwd: Subject matter Jurisdiction
To: pattison@freewwweb.com
Subject: Re: Subject matter Jurisdiction
(Slightly Edtied to make stand alone document from email discussion)

Jerome Daly was from Savage Minn. and a close friend of mine.
The “Credit River” decision (was) where a jury in a Justice of the Peace court trial
found that Federal Reserve Notes were not Moneys of Account of the United States
and the court in his opinion found them to be ‘FRAUDS’.

This case was on Dec. 7, 1968 before Justice Martin V. Mahoney of Credit
River Minn. and I was an associated Justice since Justice Mahoney had never
tried a jury trial and I was asked by “Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme
Court, Oscar Knutson, (commonly known as “King Knute”) to assist Justice
Mahoney, since the Bank of Montgomery was represented by an attorney, and
Jerome Daly was an attorney, and the case was about “Failure of Consideration”
by a bank in a mortgage foreclosure on Jerome’s cabin at Prior Lake, Minn..

Justice Mahoney declared that only “Gold and Silver Coins” were moneys of
account of the United States, and that the Constitution is still the LAW
today. “No state shall make any “THING” but Gold and Silver Coin a tender in
payment of debts…”

And of course since the Federal Government had been given only 18 to 20
powers under the Constitution it was a “Limited Government”, and according to
the 9th and 10th amendments the states and the people were Sovereign, and
retained for themselves all of the other rights not specifically given to the
Feds.

When news of the jury’s decision was picked up by Vern Myers and written
about in his newsletter, “Myers Finance and Commerce” and sent world wide the
whole world was afraid to accept FRAUDS and it got so big that they had
Justice Mahoney killed within 6 months and Jerome and I had a couple of close
calls too.

I’ve published the book: “The Credit River Decision” for 20 years now, but
sold my last copy about 6 months ago, since like Waco, no one was interested
in it after the Govt put their “SPIN DOCTORS’ to work to try to discredit it.
This like the “Special Appearance” really needs to be studied to learn the
real truth about our “Funny Money” system of creating Money “Out of thin Air”
by the Banksters.

During the trial, on cross examination the President of the “Bank of Montgomery”
testified that the banks regularly “create money out of thin air.”

Jerome asked the Bank President:
“If you were just opening up your bank and no one had yet made a deposit,
and I came into your bank, and wanted to take out a loan of $18,000.00,
could you loan me that money?

When the Bank President said, “Yes.”
I thought the jury would faint.

Jerome than said , “Does this mean that you can create money out of thin air?”

The Bank President said: “Yes. We can create money out of thin air.”

Justice Mahoney then said “IT SOUNDS LIKE FRAUD TO ME” and everybody in the
court room nodded their heads indicating that they agreed with Justice Mahoney.

The jury went out and returned a verdict in favor of Jerome Daly on the basis
that the Federal Reserve Notes were not legal and valid consideration for a
mortgage note contract.

Those that have a copy of “The Credit River Decision” just won’t part with
it, and it’s too expensive to print just a few copies, so I really don’t know
where you’ll get a copy.

Good luck on your case, and I hoped that I helped you a little.

Bill Drexler

*******************************************************
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:44:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Lyle Myhr
To: JDre105140@aol.com
Subject: Legal Tender Precident: Jerome Daily & Judge Mahoney

Bill,
This information must be published. As Lincoln said teach the Constitution in our schools,
preach itfrom the pulpits. The Internet is both and more.

(Charles)
Bill has some very good information that he would like to either offer for sale in “bound books” or “post
far and wide.” I think we can help him and should.

Lyle Myhr Jr.

——Original Message——
From: JDre105140@aol.com
To: mttank@email.com
Sent: September 17, 1999 3:30:32 PM GMT
Subject: Re: Legal Tender Precident: Jerome Daily & Judge Mahoney

I agree with you, and think it should be put in every class room as required
reading. I could reprint the book, but this list will not let me advertise it and I
don’t want to be left with 50 copies since I don’t have room for all my
other books now.
I would do anything to get it on the Internet, but recently I had forms of
“Demand for Immunity, and Public servants questionnaires,,,” , etc., and 10
people said that if I faxed them to them, they would put it on the Internet.
All 10 came up with lame excuses, once they had their copies. Total Bull .
No one put them on the Internet.

No more.
Do you have any suggestions?

Bill Drexler

From: “gi bby”
From: “Joe Herbert”
From: ICE , To:
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 1999 8:50 AM
Subject: Fwd: Money: The Credit River Decision, December 7, 1968 -Exposing the FRAUD!
From: “CCW”
Subject: Money: The Credit River Decision, December 7, 1968 – Exposing the FRAUD!
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 10:32:46 -0700

To Whom it may concern:
Posted below here are two letters giving a brief synopsis by Minnesota Attorney Jerome Daly, concerning his
“Credit River Decision” from December 7, 1968.
I have a complete transcript of this case, including the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, as well as Jerome
Daly’s scathing letter to the members of the Bar, to whom Jerome refers to as “The Boys in the Back Room.”

The letter is addressed to Patrick Foley, U.S. Attorney for Minnesota on December 27, 1968, and follows below here,
in addition to Jerome’s “Introduction” letter. Further below my e-mail signature line is a letter from Bill Drexler, who was an
associate Justice in the Jerome Daly case in Minnesota, which you should find VERY interesting.

I had a chance to meet and confer with Jerome Daly in 1991, when he assisted me with an unlawful foreclosure on my
home in Puyallup. That case is not over yet. At that time he was living out in California. He drafted some of the legal
documents on my behalf. The brief he prepared in support of my position will knock your socks off.
One of these days I’ll post it with attachments, because it does take a “picture” to explain the fraud.

If any of you still have Federal Reserve Notes, circa 1920’s through the 1960’s, you know what I’m talking about. And
if you research and read Public Law 90-269 of March 18, 1968 followed by the Legislative History of Public Law 94-564,
and the contents of Public Law 95-147 on October 28, 1977, you will begin to understand the FRAUD that has been
perpetrated by the Congress of the United States upon the People of this Nation. Public Officials need to be held STRICTLY
accountable to their Oath of Office and the Law of the Land.
In my case, a certain Court Commissioner and a Superior Court Judge are yet to be prosecuted for their fraudulent
perpetrations. Sometimes the wheels of “Justice” move slowly – but they will ONLY move when forced to do so by the
Citizenry — “We the People” — who hold ALL the power over our ordained and established Constitution, Bill of Rights, and
proper Organs of Government through Delegated Powers and Authority to Act on OUR behalf.

Perhaps after reading this you’ll begin to understand why those who are enlightened to the fraud try to deal in Coin, as it is
the ONLY medium of exchange specifically authorized under the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 & 6, and Article I,
Section 10, as well as the Coinage Act of 1792, neither of which has ever been repealed, notwithstanding the fraudulent
assertions otherwise by the totally compromised and corrupted Congress and Legislatures. As the Maxim of Law states,
“Fraud and Justice never dwell together.” And it should be remarked here that thanks to Congressman Philip M. Crane, you
NOW have Gold and Silver Coin pursuant to Public Law 99-61 (July 9, 1985) and Public Law 99-185 (December 17,
1985).
These two Public Laws made it possible for the minting and distribution of American Gold Eagles and Silver Eagles,
available at your local Coin shop. Everyone should have some real “money” in their possession; but you need to know that your
PAPER Federal Reserve Note with $1 printed on it won’t buy a One Dollar Silver Eagle — you’ll have to give about $8.00 to
$9.00 FRN’s for the REAL “Dollar”. Read Public Law 90-269 and you’ll understand why. The paper FRN and the Silver
dollar should be at “parity”.
By the way, “FRAUD” stands not only for the crime, but “Federal Reserve Accounting Unit Device”.

Mr. Daly passed away a couple of years ago . . . but his Credit River Decision lives on, even though the members of the
Bar have sought to suppress this case from public view. It is probably fitting to insert here Jerome’s “Introduction” letter of
February 7, 1969, as well as a copy of the letter to the US Attorney on December 27, 1968, so you have some idea of the
gravity of what occurred, and before you read what Bill Drexler, a friend of Jerome, wrote below my signature line. I quote
herein the two letters, as follows:

***************************************************************************

Jerome Daly, Attorney at Law
28 East Minnesota Street
Savage, Minnesota 55378
February 7, 1969

INTRODUCTION
On May 8, 1964 the writer executed a Note and Mortgage to the First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota, which
is a member of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Both Banks are private owned and are a part of the Federal Reserve
Banking System.
In the Spring of 1967 the writer was in arrears $476.00 in the payments on this Note and Mortgage. The Note was
secured by a Mortgage on real property in Spring Lake Township in Scott County, Minnesota. The Bank foreclosed by
advertisement and bought the property at a Sheriff’s Sale held on June 26, 1967 and did not redeem with the 12 month period
of time allotted by law after the Sheriff’s Sale.

The Bank brought the Action to recover the possession to the property in the Justice of the Peace Court at Savage,
Minnesota. The first 2 Justices were disqualified by Affidavit of Prejudice. The first by the writer and the Second by the Bank.
A third one refused to handle the case. It was then sent, pursuant to law, to Martin V. Mahoney, Justice of the Peace, Credit
River Township, Scott County, Minnesota, who presided at a Jury trial on December 7, 1968. The Jury found the Note and
Mortgage to be void for failure of a lawful consideration and refused to give any validity to the Sheriff’s Sale. Verdict was for
the writer with costs in the amount of $75.00.
The president of the Bank admitted that the Bank created the money and credit upon its own books by which it acquired
or gave as consideration for the Note; that this was standard banking practice, that the credit first came into existence when
they created it; that he knew of no United States Statutes which gave them the right to do this. This is the universal practice of
these Banks. The Justice who heard the case handed down the opinion attached and included herein. Its reasoning is sound. It
will withstand the test of time. This is the first time the question has been passed upon in the United States. I predict that this
decision will go into the History Books as one of the great Documents of American History. It is a huge cornerstone wrenched
from the temple of Imperialism and planted as one of the solid foundation stones of Liberty.

/s/ JEROME DALY
SAVAGE, MINNESOTA

———-

***********************************************************************

Jerome Daly
Attorney At Law
28 East Savage Street
Savage, Minnesota 55378
December 27, 1968

Mr. Patrick Foley
United states Attorney for Minnesota
United States Court House Bldg.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Re: First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly

Sir:
As you are on my mailing list, at your request, attached kindly fin 2 copies of a decision rendered at Credit River Twp.
Justice of the Peace court on December 9, 1968 by Justice Martin V. Mahoney, who by occupation is not dependent upon the
fraudulent Federal Reserve Mob for his sustenance; thus he was able to view the whole fraud, which is Global in scope, with a
mind in the settled calmness of impartiality, disinterestedness, and fairness, in keeping with his Oath and with a completely
friendly feeling toward the Constitution of the United States of America.
In truth and in fact the Justice of the Peace Court is the highest Court in the land as it is the closest to the People. Every
Judge who is dependent upon this fraudulent Federal Reserve, National and State Banking System for his sole support is
DISQUALIFIED because of self interest and had no jurisdiction to sit in review of this Judgment. If any Appellate Court,
including the Supreme Court of the United States, in review of this Judgment, perpetrates a fraud upon the People by defying
the Constitutional Law of the United States, Mahoney has resolved that he will convene another Jury in Credit River Township
to try the issue of the Fraud on the part of any State or Federal Judge, and in an action on my part to recover the possession if
the Jury decides in my favor, the Constable and the Citizens Militia of Credit River Township will, pursuant to the Law, deliver
me back into possession. So you see, this Justice of the Peace can keep the peace in Scott County, Minnesota, not with the
help of these State and Federal Judges who have fled reality, but in spite of them. This Thomas Jefferson’s prophesy with
reference to Chattel Slavery once again rings true; “God’s Justice will not sleep forever.”. (emphasis added – now you may
understand one of the lawful purposes of the Militia!)

One wonders sometimes what the United States, and its leaders, including the Shylock usury element, did to bring on a
Peal Harbor Attack on December 7, 1941, with such suddenness and devastation. It could be the Judgment of a Just God
giving vent to a stored wrath in retaliation to the money changers. It is ironic in deed that the Jury should return its verdict on the
same day 27 years later and the National and International Banking and Oil Mob shudder in their back rooms where they have
cornered the money of the World and where they sit pulling the strings; fostering, conniving and perpetrating War with profit to
themselves paid for by the blood, sweat, tears and toil of the farmer, the mechanic, the laborer and the humbler members of
society; and well they might tremble, for, as they listen they can hear, with every increasing distinctness, the sound of the waves
at low tide as they wash across the lonely decks of the U.S.S. Arizona with over 2,500 men entombed in her hold, with oil still
seeping therefrom to the surface.

It is better to be charitable than miserly, honest than dishonest, direct than indirect, upright than underhanded, intelligent
than unintelligent, to have courage than be a coward, to be free than slave, in body and in mind.

I remain,
Quite Independently Yours,

/s/ Jerome Daly

P.S. Give my best wishes for a New Year to the Boys in the Back Room.
J.D.

———-

***********************************************************************
PERMISSION TO REPOST GRANTED AS LONG AS THERE ARE NO CHANGES.
/s/ John R. Prukop

(Formatting & other minor changes done by Chrles Bruce, Stewart 9-21-99)

“Reason obeys itself; and ignorance does whatever is dictated to it.”
–Thomas Paine, Rights of Man (“Conclusion”)

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”
–Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803)

CCW Coalition: Citizens For A Constitutional Washington
John R. Prukop, Executive Director
11910-C Meridian Ave. E., #142
Puyallup, Washington 98373
TEL: (253) 840-8071
FAX: (253) 840-8074
e-mail: <mailto:ccw@wolfenet.comccw@wolfenet.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This e-mail communication is intended for the use of the individual or
entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any
action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited, unless otherwise authorized herein.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

WARNING:
Because e-mail can be altered electronically, the integrity of this
communication cannot be guaranteed.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: ,

Jerome Daly,

May 30, 2009 · Leave a Comment

First National Bank of Montgomery,
Plaintiff
vs

Jerome Daly,
Defendant

JUDGMENT AND DECREE

The above entitled action came on before the Court and a Jury of 12 on December 7, 1968 at 10:00 am. Plaintiff appeared by its President Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by its Counsel, R. Mellby. Defendant appeared on his own behalf.

A Jury of Talesmen were called, impaneled and sworn to try the issues in the Case. Lawrence V. Morgan was the only witness called for Plaintiff and Defendant testified as the only witness in his own behalf.

Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession of Lot 19 Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minn. Plaintiff claimed title to the Real Property in question by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8, 1964 which Plaintiff claimed was in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were started.

Defendant appeared and answered that the Plaintiff created the money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry as the consideration for the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964 and alleged failure of the consideration for the Mortgage Deed and alleged that the Sheriff’s sale passed no title to plaintiff.

The issues tried to the Jury were whether there was a lawful consideration and whether Defendant had waived his rights to complain about the consideration having paid on the Note for almost 3 years.

Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this. Plaintiff further claimed that Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived any right to complain about the Consideration and that the Defendant was estopped from doing so.

At 12:15 on December 7, 1968 the Jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendant.

Now therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of United States and the Constitution and the laws of the State of Minnesota not inconsistent therewith ;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1.That the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota according to the Plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office.
2.That because of failure of a lawful consideration the Note and Mortgage dated May 8, 1964 are null and void.
3.That the Sheriff’s sale of the above described premises held on June 26, 1967 is null and void, of no effect.
4.That the Plaintiff has no right title or interest in said premises or lien thereon as is above described.
5.That any provision in the Minnesota Constitution and any Minnesota Statute binding the jurisdiction of this Court is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and to the Bill of Rights of the Minnesota Constitution and is null and void and that this Court has jurisdiction to render complete Justice in this Cause.
The following memorandum and any supplementary memorandum made and filed by this Court in support of this Judgment is hereby made a part hereof by reference.

BY THE COURT

Dated December 9, 1968
Justice MARTIN V. MAHONEY
Credit River Township
Scott County, Minnesota

Justice Martin V. Mahoney was murdered 6 months after he entered the Credit River Decision on the books of the Court, why the case was never legally overturned, nor can it be.

A short lesson on Fractional reserve lending and how it works:

Categories: Jerome Daly
Tagged:

Council Substitute for House Bill No. 435

May 30, 2009 · Leave a Comment

CHAPTER 2008-76
Council Substitute for House Bill No. 435
An act relating to trust administration; amending s. 736.0703, F.S.;
providing exceptions to duties and liabilities of cotrustees for excluded
cotrustees under certain circumstances; relieving excluded
cotrustees from specified liabilities and obligations under certain
circumstances; providing for liabilities and obligations of included
cotrustees; amending s. 736.0802, F.S.; providing an exception for
trustee payments of costs and attorney’s fees from trust assets except
pursuant to court order under certain circumstances; requiring
trustees to provide certain notice to beneficiaries; providing notice
requirements; providing requirements for obtaining such a court
order; specifying remedies; providing for specified refunds and sanctions;
preserving certain court remedies; amending s. 736.1008, F.S.;
specifying periods of repose barring claims by a beneficiary against
a trustee; providing construction; providing an effective date.
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
Section 1. Subsection (7) of section 736.0703, Florida Statutes, is
amended, and subsection (9) is added to that section, to read:
736.0703 Cotrustees.—
(7) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (9), each cotrustee shall
exercise reasonable care to:
(a) Prevent a cotrustee from committing a breach of trust.
(b) Compel a cotrustee to redress a breach of trust.
(9) If the terms of a trust instrument provide for the appointment of more
than one trustee but confer upon one or more of the trustees, to the exclusion
of the others, the power to direct or prevent specified actions of the trustees,
the excluded trustees shall act in accordance with the exercise of the power.
Except in cases of willful misconduct on the part of the directed trustee of
which the excluded trustee has actual knowledge, an excluded trustee is not
liable, individually or as a fiduciary, for any consequence that results from
compliance with the exercise of the power, regardless of the information
available to the excluded trustees. The excluded trustees are relieved of any
obligation to review, inquire, investigate, or make recommendations or evaluations
with respect to the exercise of the power. The trustee or trustees
having the power to direct or prevent actions of the trustees shall be liable
to the beneficiaries with respect to the exercise of the power as if the excluded
trustees were not in office and shall have the exclusive obligation to
account to and to defend any action brought by the beneficiaries with respect
to the exercise of the power.
Section 2. Subsection (10) of section 736.0802, Florida Statutes, is
amended to read:
1
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
736.0802 Duty of loyalty.—
(10) Payment of costs or attorney’s fees incurred in any trust proceeding
from the assets of the trust may be made by the trustee without the approval
of any person and without court authorization, unless the court orders otherwise
as provided in paragraph (b) except that court authorization shall be
required if an action has been filed or defense asserted against the trustee
based upon a breach of trust. Court authorization is not required if the
action or defense is later withdrawn or dismissed by the party that is alleging
a breach of trust or resolved without a determination by the court that
the trustee has committed a breach of trust.
(a) If a claim or defense based upon a breach of trust is made against a
trustee in a proceeding, the trustee shall provide written notice to each
qualified beneficiary of the trust whose share of the trust may be affected
by the payment of attorney’s fees and costs of the intention to pay costs or
attorney’s fees incurred in the proceeding from the trust prior to making
payment. The written notice shall be delivered by sending a copy by any
commercial delivery service requiring a signed receipt, by any form of mail
requiring a signed receipt, or as provided in the Florida Rules of Civil
Procedure for service of process. The written notice shall inform each qualified
beneficiary of the trust whose share of the trust may be affected by the
payment of attorney’s fees and costs of the right to apply to the court for an
order prohibiting the trustee from paying attorney’s fees or costs from trust
assets. If a trustee is served with a motion for an order prohibiting the
trustee from paying attorney’s fees or costs in the proceeding and the trustee
pays attorney’s fees or costs before an order is entered on the motion, the
trustee and the trustee’s attorneys who have been paid attorney’s fees or
costs from trust assets to defend against the claim or defense are subject to
the remedies in paragraphs (b) and (c).
(b) If a claim or defense based upon breach of trust is made against a
trustee in a proceeding, a party must obtain a court order to prohibit the
trustee from paying costs or attorney’s fees from trust assets. To obtain an
order prohibiting payment of costs or attorney’s fees from trust assets, a
party must make a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or by
proffering evidence that provides a reasonable basis for a court to conclude
that there has been a breach of trust. The trustee may proffer evidence to
rebut the evidence submitted by a party. The court in its discretion may
defer ruling on the motion, pending discovery to be taken by the parties. If
the court finds that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that there has
been a breach of trust, unless the court finds good cause, the court shall
enter an order prohibiting the payment of further attorney’s fees and costs
from the assets of the trust and shall order attorney’s fees or costs previously
paid from assets of the trust to be refunded. An order entered under this
paragraph shall not limit a trustee’s right to seek an order permitting the
payment of some or all of the attorney’s fees or costs incurred in the proceeding
from trust assets, including any fees required to be refunded, after the
claim or defense is finally determined by the court. If a claim or defense
based upon a breach of trust is withdrawn, dismissed, or resolved without
a determination by the court that the trustee committed a breach of trust
after the entry of an order prohibiting payment of attorney’s fees and costs
Ch. 2008-76 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2008-76
2
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
pursuant to this paragraph, the trustee may pay costs or attorneys’ fees
incurred in the proceeding from the assets of the trust without further court
authorization.
(c) If the court orders a refund under paragraph (b), the court may enter
such sanctions as are appropriate if a refund is not made as directed by the
court, including, but not limited to, striking defenses or pleadings filed by
the trustee. Nothing in this subsection limits other remedies and sanctions
the court may employ for the failure to refund timely.
(d) Nothing in this subsection limits the power of the court to review fees
and costs or the right of any interested persons to challenge fees and costs
after payment, after an accounting, or after conclusion of the litigation.
(e) Notice under paragraph (a) is not required if the action or defense is
later withdrawn or dismissed by the party that is alleging a breach of trust
or resolved without a determination by the court that the trustee has committed
a breach of trust.
Section 3. Subsection (3) of section 736.1008, Florida Statutes, is
amended, subsection (6) of that section is renumbered as subsection (7), and
new subsection (6) is added to that section, to read:
736.1008 Limitations on proceedings against trustees.—
(3) When a trustee has not issued a final trust accounting or has not
given written notice to the beneficiary of the availability of the trust records
for examination and that claims with respect to matters not adequately
disclosed may be barred, a claim against the trustee for breach of trust based
on a matter not adequately disclosed in a trust disclosure document is
barred as provided in chapter 95 and accrues when the beneficiary has
actual knowledge of:
(a) The facts upon which the claim is based if such actual knowledge is
established by clear and convincing evidence; or
(b) The trustee’s repudiation of the trust or adverse possession of trust
assets, and is barred as provided in chapter 95.
Paragraph (a) applies to claims based upon acts or omissions occurring on
or after July 1, 2008.
(6)(a) Notwithstanding subsections (1), (2), and (3), all claims by a beneficiary
against a trustee are barred:
1. Upon the later of:
a. Ten years after the date the trust terminates, the trustee resigns, or
the fiduciary relationship between the trustee and the beneficiary otherwise
ends if the beneficiary had actual knowledge of the existence of the trust and
the beneficiary’s status as a beneficiary throughout the 10-year period; or
b. Twenty years after the date of the act or omission of the trustee that
is complained of if the beneficiary had actual knowledge of the existence of
Ch. 2008-76 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2008-76
3
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
the trust and the beneficiary’s status as a beneficiary throughout the 20-
year period; or
2. Forty years after the date the trust terminates, the trustee resigns, or
the fiduciary relationship between the trustee and the beneficiary otherwise
ends.
(b) When a beneficiary shows by clear and convincing evidence that a
trustee actively concealed facts supporting a cause of action, any existing
applicable statute of repose shall be extended by 30 years.
(c) For purposes of sub-subparagraph (a)1.b., the failure of the trustee to
take corrective action is not a separate act or omission and does not extend
the period of repose established by this subsection.
(d) This subsection applies to claims based upon acts or omissions occurring
on or after July 1, 2008.
Section 4. This act shall take effect July 1, 2008.
Approved by the Governor May 28, 2008.
Filed in Office Secretary of State May 28, 2008.
Ch. 2008-76 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2008-76
4

Categories: Council Substitute for House Bill No. 435

The Florida Senate

May 30, 2009 · Leave a Comment

The 2008 Florida Statutes

Title XXXIX
COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

Chapter 687
INTEREST AND USURY; LENDING PRACTICES

View Entire Chapter

687.04 Penalty for usury; not to apply in certain situations.–Any person, or any agent, officer, or other representative of any person, willfully violating the provisions of s. 687.03 shall forfeit the entire interest so charged, or contracted to be charged or reserved, and only the actual principal sum of such usurious contract can be enforced in any court in this state, either at law or in equity; and when said usurious interest is taken or reserved, or has been paid, then and in that event the person who has taken or reserved, or has been paid, either directly or indirectly, such usurious interest shall forfeit to the party from whom such usurious interest has been reserved, taken, or exacted in any way double the amount of interest so reserved, taken, or exacted. However, the penalties provided for by this section shall not apply:

(1) To a bona fide endorsee or transferee of negotiable paper purchased before maturity, unless the usurious character should appear upon its face, or unless the said endorsee or transferee shall have had actual notice of the same before the purchase of such paper, but in such event double the amount of such usurious interest may be recovered after payment, by action against the party originally exacting the same, in any court of competent jurisdiction in this state, together with an attorney’s fee, as provided in s. 687.06; or

(2) If, prior to the institution of an action by the borrower or the filing of a defense under this chapter by the borrower or receipt of written notice by the lender from the borrower that usury has been charged or collected, the lender notifies the borrower of the usurious overcharge and refunds the amount of any overcharge taken, plus interest on the overcharge taken at the maximum lawful rate in effect at the time the usurious interest was taken, to the borrower and makes whatever adjustments in the appropriate contract or account as are necessary to ensure that the borrower will not be required to pay further interest in excess of the amount permitted by s. 687.03.

History.–s. 3, ch. 4022, 1891; GS 3106; s. 3, ch. 5960, 1909; RGS 4852; CGL 6939; s. 1, ch. 79-90.

Categories: The Florida Senate
Tagged: