In reviewing the Credit River case, I read that the case was later nullified, presumably on the basis that the Justice of the Peace did not have judicial authority to rule on the case. Also, the Utah Supreme Court later ruled that the premise of the case was 'without basis' (their normal put-down of any premise that challenges their agenda). Has the Credit River premise (of a contract void of consideration due to illegal bank lending of their credit, but not their money) ever been retested, perhaps in an Article III court? Such a valid court finding would stop the mortgage fraud in its tracks, so I can see where the 'judicial system' (just us) would resist it, but we are seeing the suitors clause being used to magnificient effect elsewhere (Hundredth Monkey, etc). Just askin

Freed