Ep. 328 - The Informer - Part 2
Notes
If you took notes and would like to share them with others, please send an email to the archivist and be sure to reference the title of the interview.
Transcript
Machine transcription — may contain errors. Click a timestamp to jump the audio there.
BOOM
Vyzygoth: Well, welcome again to another segment of the Grassy Knoll. And you'll be hearing this, of course, on remnantradio.org, pascoradio.org. They carry the streams. It'll be in the archives. On visigot.com, look under archived audio. By the time you're hearing this show, hopefully that will be expanded to carry a little bit more than we do already, which is just four hours. Today we have with us, on a return visit, the Informer. And that's the name he goes by, or, well, I'll just leave it at that. You can read his writings on Against the Grain Press website. That's A-T-G Press dot com. And right under that first column you see the Informer. Click on that. And he has a number of topics to which he addresses his writings.
Vyzygoth: And I want to thank you, I-Man, for coming on for a second show. Hello, I-Man. Yes, I'm here. Oh, okay. I didn't hear you. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. We left off with a certain topic I think that you wanted to kind of tie up, you said, before we went on to a second topic. Do you want to pick up right there?
The Informer: Yeah, I just wanted to clarify a couple things that was on the last show before we get into the rest of the crown control. One I've got is from, and anybody can pick this up if they go online, it's cited from 47 Duke Law Journal, 1013. It is entitled, Is Tobacco a Drug? And then it says, Administrative Agencies as Common Law Courts.
The Informer: And when I went in there to look at the definition of common law, because definitions play such an important role in everything we do today, that what you pick up and read in a standard dictionary like Webster's is totally different than what you pick up and read in a law, statute dictionary. So one of the things was definition of common law. and in the Duke Journal it says, also known as case law.
The Informer: Common law is a set of principles and rules of action that have been made by judges in the course of writing opinions in litigated matters. This is to be distinguished from statutory law, which is law created by legislative bodies. Common law rests on the principle of stare decisis, which means that judges will abide by or adhere to decided cases or precedent. Common law reflects the principles determined by the social needs of the community which change over time.
The Informer: They go on further in the law journal and they say that today the common law courts do not exist only in administrative agencies. that you happen to, let's say IRS, and they happen to send you a letter, and you don't respond. That agency is a common law court, and what they do is they note it, that you defaulted in not responding. They of course send you all these other letters. Some people don't respond, some people do.
The Informer: When they go into a real court, which is mostly all maritime, admiralty, jurisdiction, the court, everybody loses and they wonder why because all their arguments are there and they think they're going to win. Well, what it is, the whole thing is res judicata because they've already been to the common law court. And that's the common law agency, whether it be HUD, IRS, Social Security, any of the agencies from A to Z. They are the common law courts.
The Informer: You get back into Bevin's case.
Vyzygoth: Can I hold you for a second there?
The Informer: Sure.
Vyzygoth: There's one thing I want to ask you. You use the term mostly admiralty courts, or they're mostly that. Right. Now, can you be more precise, in other words, what courts aren't, or are you just understanding that they're all admiralty?
The Informer: No. Well, they're all admiralty, but they go into the common law, such as anyone violating the Ten Commandments. murder, rape, robbery, they're common law crimes, and they've been that way since time immemorial. So those are the courts that sit. In other words, an admiralty court can sit as a common law court under those principles. Because when you go back and you read some of the old, old cases, when they first came over to this country, and the Bevin's case is one of them, and I'll read right from that, and it's on page 355 and it says, there can be no doubt that the technical common law terms used in the Constitution are to be construed according to that law, such as habeas corpus, trial by jury, etc.
The Informer: Now here's a kicker, but this is a term of universal law, cases of admiralty in maritime jurisdiction. Not cases of admiralty jurisdiction only, but the broadest and most expansive terms that could be used to grasp the largest sense relative to the section, to the subject matter. So in the case you're talking about, say someone killed in a bay, that comes under admiralty jurisdiction. It's a common law crime, yeah, because that murder is a common law crime.
The Informer: So consequently, the locust in Kuo is not within the body of any country. It's within the maritime law, which is universal. So it goes on and further, and it says, that jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the United States courts cognizant of this offense. There is no doubt the courts of the United States are courts of limited jurisdiction, but not limited as to each general class of cases of which they take cognizance. So the meaning and extent of these terms is to be sought for, not in the common law, but in the civil law.
The Informer: Now remember, I had said previously that the civil law is admiralty law. So that's where I say mostly.
Vyzygoth: So in other words, you can actually go into the same court And I guess, in a way, the judge changes hats without you really knowing it. Actually, it's the law that changes, or the law by which the judges go by.
The Informer: Right, because it's the caption page that queers the judge to sit by that law.
Vyzygoth: In other words, it's a trigger to tell them which way to go?
The Informer: Yes.
Vyzygoth: Okay.
The Informer: And now, further on in the Bevin's case, They come in and they say that on page 278, that whether courts of admiralty in the plantations can take cognizance of questions which arise concerning the importation or exportation of goods to or from them, or of frauds in matters of trade. Now, I said plantations. This is again definitions. Plantations were the colonies. Each of the colonies is called a plantation. It's not a farm. It is a business.
The Informer: And so there's a lot of times when people read plantations they think farm. It's not. It's a business. It's a corporate structure. Now it says that and in cases a vessel sail up any river with prohibited goods intended for the use of inhabitants, whether the former may choose what court he will prosecute. So you have the right to choose the court. In the court of admiralty or of common law. Now it says on this construction of the statute, the courts of admiralty in the colonies Assume jurisdiction over causes arriving from violations of laws of trade and of revenue.
The Informer: Quote, and from this time, end quote, says Mr. Reeves, there seems to have been a more general obedience to the acts of trade and navigation. That's why this case, United States versus VEVANS, is a critical to get to see how they're operating. All right, so now based on this, we go to, and anybody can pick this up on Cornell.
The Informer: It is http colon forward slash www.law.cornell.edu forward slash topics forward slash Admiralty forward slash HTML. It says Admiralty Law and Materials, and it gives the overview. and it says the courts in Congress seek to create a uniform body of admiralty law both nationally and internationally in order to facilitate commerce. The federal courts derive their exclusive jurisdiction over this field of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and from Article 3, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
The Informer: Congress regulates admiralty partially through the commerce clause. American Navirility Law formally applied only to American title waters. It now extends to any waters, Naza, Goavel, within the United States for interstate and foreign commerce. In such waters, jurisdiction includes maritime matters, not interstate commerce, including recreational boating. It goes on further, and I don't want to read the whole thing, but it would take up most of this time. It says that the common law does not act as a binding precedent on Admiralty courts, but it and other law may be used when no law on point is available.
The Informer: Parties subject to Admiralty may not contract out of Admiralty jurisdiction, and states may not infringe on Admiralty jurisdiction, either judicially or legislatively. That's why I say it's good for the people who go online to that site I just gave, and they can read for themselves what I'm reading here.
Vyzygoth: Alright, I mean, just for my purposes right now, and anybody else who may be looking forward as they're listening to this, I did get the website up, I'm under Admiralty, where exactly is it, that table of contents?
The Informer: Okay, it says, Admiralty, or EDU, topics, forward slash Admiralty, and then it's .html.
Vyzygoth: Right, I've got that, but now we're on that page where it says Admiralty and gives you the table of contents, an overview, menu of sources, federal material.
The Informer: Yeah, I'm reading here from the overview.
Vyzygoth: It's from the overview? Okay, I got it then. No problem. I want to bookmark that too so I can look at it in time to come. Alright, now there's no way in the world, possibly, that you're interpreting this other than it should be.
The Informer: Right.
Vyzygoth: Are you?
The Informer: Alright, now... Yeah, because when you read this, see, A lot of times when you take things out of context, a little portion out of it, it can be construed in many ways, but you have to read the overall thing to get what they're really talking about. And this is what the problem is with most patriots. They pick something up, they read it, and they don't look at the overall view of where it's coming from. And that's why so many times a site can be misquoted from a case. when it's just the opposite of what they're interpreting from that little portion that they pulled out.
Vyzygoth: You know, growing up with some people, a few of whom became lawyers, I mentioned to you that the one had told me, and we're having a discussion about something unrelated, but he had said that the American Code of Law is based on the English Civilty Code, is that right?
The Informer: Yeah, and let me tell you another thing. that is very critical I had based on this what we just read or I just read I contacted quite a few years back Westlaw and I contacted their main attorney for Westlaw and I was citing something in that blacks law dictionary and I told him that it was wrong and he got back to me and wrote back to me he says yes we realize it's wrong And we're changing it, and it will be coming out in the sixth edition.
The Informer: So then I asked them another question, and I said, why is it in the back of the Black's Law Dictionary, it doesn't list the presidents, but it lists the original years of every king and queen from the beginning? And his response was, and I have it in writing, That the presidents are inconsequential to the laws because the laws in this country are based upon the Queen or the King reigning at the time because we operate under those laws today.
Vyzygoth: So what was the error then that occurred in Black's law dictionary?
The Informer: It's in the back in the Blacks and it lists the the years that all the kings and the queens range, and it ranged from 1066 all the way up to present. It's on the one page, it goes, William, October 14, 1066, length of reign 21 years. And it comes all the way up to Queen Elizabeth II, February 6, 1952, and of course she's still alive.
Vyzygoth: Fortunately, believe this or not, the library for which I once worked, a university library, excuse me, was going to chuck out Black 6th edition. I have it right in front of me. And there it is on page 1657.
The Informer: OK, I've got 1511 here.
Vyzygoth: Is that the 6th that you have?
The Informer: No, this is the 5th edition.
Vyzygoth: All right, this is the 6th then. And it does have all the reins of the sovereigns.
The Informer: Right. And that's what he said, is that we operate under those principles that were set down by the statutes in the king of that year. So in other words, all the plantations, the colonies, were corporate states belonging in America. Of course, the crown, the king, now we're talking about the king, when I say the king, that will differentiate it from the crown which is who controls the king the banks of england okay it's very confusing to a lot of people and that's why a lot of times they just throw their hands up and walk away and they can't argue with you because you know they think you're nuts but i'm sorry if you heard that because what i wanted to find out was that all of this in fact was urban legend and it's not No.
Vyzygoth: And I got, you know, even Harry, my sometimes former partner, sometimes present partner, you know, used to gap a plectic when I would talk about, you know, I went into the Dade City Court and, you know, son of a gun, there's two of them and they both got fringe around the flag. He's like, oh, that doesn't mean anything, you know. But, you know, it does mean something, doesn't it? As much as, you know, that isn't really what we should be concerned about, it's not there just by mistake, is it?
The Informer: No, it's the law of the flag. Rustat is a good case. I can't remember the site, but Rustat was a good case for that. But the fringe, a lot of people get misplaced data. And what it is is the fringe denotes that it's the commander in chief. That's his flag. He can do what he wants with it. And that denotes that he's the commander in chief over all the military. So when you go into a corps and you see the fringe on it, it is notifying you that you are in a military corps which is under Admiralty jurisdiction, going all the way back, doing logical thinking, when the King sent the people over here, he couldn't come over himself, he sent his admirals over.
The Informer: And his admirals set the law. That's why it's called Admiralty Law. It's really maritime law, but the Admiral is, as if the King is there, he's the spokesperson, he's his agent. And when they set up the plantations, the admirals controlled, And then they set up the governors. Now the governor, now the emperors can go back to England and by proxy that governor is administering the king's law.
The Informer: So when the revolution started and all this happy stuff happened, the king actually in the 1783 treaty gave the people up, but he kept his colonies. They were his corporations, just like GM. They have five branches, Pontiac, GM, Chevrolet, Cadillac, and all of them. They put GM in place of the King, and Chevrolet for New York, and all the colonies, so it was 13, not 5.
The Informer: He gave up the people and gave them their freedom, but he controlled every aspect of the British colonies. He didn't want to give up his corporations. So that's why the people then were here, and they just traded the king for a governor, that's all. In North Carolina, the governor was the royal governor, And there were two governors. There was a common people's governor and there was a royal governor.
The Informer: And then when after 1776, the governor Caswell, what he did is he was the royal governor and he became the governor of the state of North Carolina. And in the Halifax reserves, they had said to the people that they could no longer protect the people. They would have to go it on their own.
The Informer: and therefore the common governor at the time he just disappeared you know he ceased to be any functional at all now what the governor Caswell the royal governor did the first thing he did was he eliminated the quittrant tax see the king taxed every property by a quittrant a certain amount that wasn't based on valuation and the first thing that Governor Caswell did, and I imagine every other state did it, he eliminated the quittering tax and added an ad valorem tax, which means now they would set the price of the property and charge a tax accordingly.
The Informer: Not just, well, here's a building, it's got five windows, and we're going to charge $10 tax. Now they got, well, here's a building, it's got five windows and two fireplaces, And we're going to say that that is a value of $1,000. And we're going to have a mill rate and place it on every $1,000. That's what we have today. Now if, in fact, we were supposed to be free, they would eliminate the quitter tax and people would not have to pay a property tax.
Vyzygoth: I've got a couple of questions I'd like to ask you right now. Sure. digress, just remember where you left off. I don't think so, but I've got to ask you these while we're further up in the forehead of my very small brain. It was my thought looking at the Treaty of Paris and just what happened with England's military involvement with the colonists. Would I be right in what I did in assuming that they probably said, you know, the king, whatever, the Rothschilds said, listen, Okay guys, right. Come on back with the soldiers when you can and let's not shed blood anymore. I'll tell you what. You guys are business enterprise of the crown. And we'll get you back financially enough with shedding blood.
Vyzygoth: So go ahead and think what you want. We'll catch you, you know, financially. Is that correct?
The Informer: Yeah, that's why they stayed here. And they never, um... And you can equate this, a lot of people can probably equate this, that we're alive, we're young at the time, during World War II, like I was. When MacArthur went over and signed the Peace after the atomic bombs were dropped, MacArthur dictated all the parameters of that Treaty of Peace between Japan and the United States. It was quite the opposite with the King. The King dictated everything in that Treaty of Peace of 1783. That's right.
Vyzygoth: and uh... therefore he still with the arch treasurer of the united states and says so right in there uh... but that's yeah that that's basically what you were saying let me ask you this now let's say hypothetically some some profits some territory let's just say within the contiguous forty eight states didn't become a state uh... maybe it was part of the uh... acquisition from uh... Uh-huh. Could they have, could those residents have been free of the same situation that the state's residents were free of, or would they have gotten hooked into, or was that pretty much an obscure question?
The Informer: You mean like Spain and Louisiana?
Vyzygoth: Well, I'm just saying if the territory existed, just for getting District of Columbia right now, was it statehood that roped, I guess this is asking it another way, did statehood hook the citizens of that state into this whole business relationship with the Crown?
The Informer: Yeah, and the way it is, if you logically think about it, the King owned all the property, all the land. The people were free. The Crown was owed money by the King. So the Crown had a lien on all the property. anything the king owned. Therefore, Virginia and Maryland were states. There was no territory like the United States. They banged around from New York to Philadelphia and a few other towns, and they didn't have any place to set.
The Informer: So Congress, that's actually the United States, if you look at it. Congress is nothing more than the United States. We always see in Congress assembled the United States in Congress assembled and that that means basically whenever Congress assembled that's the United States and they're assembled all the time now but what it is is all the land the people were on the land they were only tenants they didn't own the land at all there can be no allodial land owned in the United States because it's still owned by the Crown through the king because he couldn't transfer any land because of the heirs and there will always be an office found under the reign of the king.
Vyzygoth: Let me hold you there for a second. David Wilbur Johnson has been on to speak to property rights and he chronicled that in some cases people when they're in a dispute whether it's with a town or whatever over their land that they can go back to the original treaties which hold precedents and of course beyond England you had treaties with the Dutch with the Spanish with the French and even with the Russians considering California Now, do you abide with that as well?
The Informer: Well, that would appear to be, but when the colonies and everything became under the rule of the United States, remember the Crown operated in every one of those countries. France, China, Spain, Italy, didn't matter. The Crown, the banks ruled everything.
The Informer: in the world and based on that yeah we was doing this back in the 80s and going back to land patents and land grants and we in Penn in Pennsylvania and so on and so forth but he was still granted that the same as the seven proprietors where the King gave the seven proprietors every piece of land that they could operate with in this country And then when he wanted it back, everybody that Lord Granville, and the county I happen to live in is Granville County, named after him, he refused to give it back.
The Informer: When the war ended, the 1776 war ended, they confiscated, the governor in North Carolina, Caswell, confiscated that land and returned it back to the king. Now wait a minute, if this is supposed to be a free country, And the governor is supposed to be for the people, what's he doing confiscating Lord Granville's land and turning it back over to the Crown?
Vyzygoth: There's something else that keeps popping up all the time too, and it did with Johnson, and as you just mentioned, and if we can address that, and that is that famous year in 1066 when William Hastings or William the Conqueror invaded, I guess, England, right? Yes, he did.
Vyzygoth: and the people of england owned their own land there was no such thing as uh... what we have today we don't know if you really have a actually hold their land when the conqueror come in and took the land by conquest what johnson said uh... throughout the please respond to it it seems to me that what he said was that in ten sixty six and because of that invasion that was the end of a little land owned by the peasants and that's right and that carried over here I don't think that John would argue that either. I'm just trying to find the resonating points here and just to bolster both your arguments but your information.
The Informer: It's very confusing. Unless you're a researcher like us, imagine he's a pretty good researcher, I don't know the man, but you just can't pick up what people say and carry it down through a myth, through history as it's been done. And so many people out there, I'm going to use the word patriot loosely, they pick up on what was before them and it goes on back and it's like the little kid, the teacher tells the little kid in the first row a little story and by the time it gets around all the thirty kids in the room and the last kid recites the same story, she don't know what the kid's talking about.
The Informer: You know what I mean? The word of mouth and everything goes down. and uh... how would you think we have you know stranger territory of puerto ricos is regarded by the crown uh... you mean the island for killed well that was uh... that was uh... taken up by the united states like the status of puerto rica yeah that was uh... 1898 is when Spain gave it up.
The Informer: In fact, that was the Spanish-American War and my uncle, we buried him on the day that Kennedy was shot, that's how I remember. It's also my wife's birthday, so he fought in that Spanish-American War also. So I have some stories that are still in my memory from what he used to tell me.
Vyzygoth: But I mean, I do believe everybody is in tow to the bankers. But I'm wondering, well, we might know what that is, right, I-Man? Yeah, right. All of whoever is there. Can you hear that?
The Informer: It was like a click or something?
Vyzygoth: It was like a beep.
The Informer: Oh yeah, yeah.
Vyzygoth: Okay, there was two of those and that's not somebody calling me usually. It's a little different, but anyway.
The Informer: It's probably FBI tapping along.
Vyzygoth: Okay, I'm glad you said it.
The Informer: Well, I let them know if they tap my line. I just talked to them for a month. I hope you guys are getting a good earful because I don't know what you're learning, but you're not learning much from me. Yeah, I heard that again.
Vyzygoth: When I get a call, it's two intonations, you know, and it's not just that one silent beep, so I don't know what that's about, but I'm sure we're going to find out later, and you'll tell me, oh man, I wonder if they're doing this to jam us, you know?
The Informer: Yeah, because I don't have call waiting on this phone. I just got the cheapest phone. No frills.
Vyzygoth: That's it, you got it. All right, moving on then, if we could. The thing about Puerto Rico, though, are they looked at as part of the United States, do you think, or do you know in the eyes of the crown?
The Informer: Well, they're a territory of the United States, yeah. And that's why they have representatives in Washington that they can't vote. They have, you know, congressmen in Puerto Rico, there's three of them, and they're in Puerto Rico that they can't vote.
Vyzygoth: So what's the significance, then, of having the representation? Nothing?
The Informer: Nothing.
Vyzygoth: Makes it look good?
The Informer: Just to make it look good, I guess.
Vyzygoth: But that means, in a sense, they don't have the hooks into them, then, do they?
The Informer: No, but the Crown does. the crown still owns that because anything the United States acquired from Spain is the same principle.
Vyzygoth: Alright, then my question about the territory I think is even best to answer here then, and that is you're involved with the United States, you're hooked in.
The Informer: Yeah, because the territory, alright, everybody, there was an article that came over the email yesterday, and it was really good. It went back into a lot of the history and was talking about, you know, The territory in the United States can't go outside of certain bounds and meets and whatnot of Washington D.C., but the problem is that would be good if there was a true republic, but this is a fascist democracy that we're operating in today, and there is no republic. If you go back, and this is why I say it's very critical to look up definitions Now, I have some definitions here that I was going to start with.
The Informer: I can't read them all because it would take me all the rest of the, probably about 40 minutes to go through every definition. But you'd have to get the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, the Newberry House Dictionary, 1999 issue, and the Webster's Revised Dictionary of 1913. Because it's interesting that you must go to the dictionary at that time when a law was written, because that's where they generally get it.
The Informer: And the reason why I chose Webster's 1913 dictionary, Unabridged, was that's when the income tax was written. Now if you notice when you read the first income tax, it says at home. You know, whether abroad or at home. So when you go in, you wonder, well, at home, everybody thinks the country, right? No, that's not true. The dictionary definition of at home in the 1913 Webster's revised dictionary is the seat of government. Nothing else.
The Informer: It doesn't mean the entire 48 states, 50 states, when it was drafted, it meant the seat of government Washington D.C. That's what the definition of at home meant in the 1913 income tax.
Vyzygoth: Now having said that and just referring back, if you can, is there some kind of significance then to the Fourteenth Amendment that a lot of people don't get regarding the district?
The Informer: Yes.
Vyzygoth: Could you tell us what that is?
The Informer: Okay. Again, we have to go back to the beginning of a republic. A republic is, if you read the definition of a republic and you go all the way back through the etymology of the word, it simply means a corporation. So when everybody says, well, I want a republic, we've got to get back to a republic. You've got a republican government. And Texas versus White was a very good case where they said that only Congress What is a Republican government?
The Informer: In other words, in Texas vs. White, they said that if a state wanted to join the Union, it would have to be a Republican government. And then it said that only Congress can determine and make the determination of what a Republican government is for that area to join the Union. Republican, a republic, is really a corporation.
Vyzygoth: So that would be the reason I take it, given the color of that definition of republic, that the federal government had to, if you will, re-lean on several southern states to make sure that they help ratify the 14th.
The Informer: Yeah, okay. Now let's get back. Washington, George W., in 1791, destroyed the Republic at the time, as how it was originally set up, the Constitution. And how he did that is because with Hamilton, who was the front man for the Crown, because his father's name was Levine, he was a Jewish person, he came over to the island of Nuevas, and before he did he changed his name to Hamilton. He married Rachel Fawcett who was a mulatto and they had Alexander.
The Informer: Now Alexander was primed by the time he was 15 they sent him back to the crown because his father was part of the Jewish bankers at the time.
Vyzygoth: We can infer then that Hamilton might have known one of the Rothschilds.
The Informer: Oh yes, oh definitely. Or Levine, Levine at the time. So when he came back over here, he was appointed to the Secretary of Treasury. He was a man, so he convinced Washington that they needed a bank. Well the Constitution did not provide for the bank. So they went ahead and Jefferson, a man named Stimson, and I can't remember the other escape from me right now, we have the letters from them stating that there is no way the Constitution gave them the authority to create any bank. But they went ahead and did it anyway.
The Informer: So in 1791, Washington created the districts, the district states. That means he overrode on every land a district state. In other words, a state upon a state. And the reason they did that is because the banks who were first set up were private banks owned by the Crown. What they did was the bank had been sued by the state of Maryland. One of the taxis. And John Marshall who was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, owned 7,200 shares of the foreign bank.
The Informer: He was listed as a foreign stockholder. He was an American, he was in the United States, and he was still listed as a foreign stockholder because of the bank being foreign to this country. It was called the first bank in the United States, but that doesn't mean it belonged to the United States. It was just the first bank in the United States, and it was private and foreign.
The Informer: he ruled for the bank because had he not ruled for the bank and let the state of Maryland control it and tax the bank he would have lost all the shares and it would have proven that the bank was not in total control of everything in this country and that's why Washington in 71 created the districts so that the district courts could sit Any time a bank ran into trouble, that is where the district courts of the United States emanated from.
Vyzygoth: To protect the banks?
The Informer: Yes, to protect the banks, that's all.
Vyzygoth: You know, it seemed to me strange that if Washington was to be what he was said to have been, and Jefferson and such, and there's a lot of argument on both sides. But the thing that I thought the colonists had, one of the reasons why they came here was the fact that the things they didn't like was being basically defrauded by the Bank of England.
The Informer: Yep, you're exactly right. And if you go on to the Informer site, it would be to everybody to read The History of the American Bar. There's only excerpts in there from the whole book that I have. But you will see that the people despise the common law. It was too harsh. They hated the common law. But everybody here in this country seems the common law is one of the best things since white rice. And it's not. It's ugly. And they can get a good grasp of just reading it and there are certain highlighted portions in there in the ATG press site on the bar And the book is excellent.
The Informer: It's an excellent book. It's just too bad that you probably You can't get it anymore.
Vyzygoth: Well, I want to tell people again, I've been remiss in doing this, that this is the Grassland Olin with us as the informer who posts work on the website informerarchives.com. And that particular, you just mentioned to me, I'm on the site now, what is it that you would have people read?
The Informer: The History of the American Bar is probably called the American Bar.
Vyzygoth: Okay. And also there is a chance that if people do want to purchase some of your works, how would they best do that?
The Informer: On the bottom of the ATG site is the address of where to send the money and or the money order and it gives instructions in there and that's the only way that they would have to
Vyzygoth: versus your writings. On that website, you have in one place a print not available. Are the rest of those titles still available at the other rate or so?
The Informer: Now, where I got this book from, I got it from the Clemson University library, the History of the American Bar, so it's a complete copy. from it, and like I say, it was printed and copyrighted in 1911, 1939, and the edition that I have is 1966. That's the last time it was written by Howard Furtag, and I think it's got a Library of Congress card number, and the number is 66-24357.
The Informer: And I have this so much porcupine that I think about every page is porcupine with quick post notes. I mean it is that important to read it and you get a good flair of how the bar and where all of the lawyers came from the middle and inner temples and the Templar was the crown. It wasn't the King. It wasn't the King of England, the Queen of England. It was the crown. and the Crown had all the Templars and from the middle and the inner and it will describe the ends of court which we have in this country today and whether every lawyer knows it or not they're under the control of the Crown.
Vyzygoth: Another question if I could. Okay. with the District of Columbia and the Fourteenth Amendment. The way I read it, at least to my understanding, is that didn't at that time, at that point forward, the American people pick up the tab for whatever the District of Columbia ran up?
The Informer: Yeah, because if you look at the last paragraph, it says that you will not be able to question the public debt.
Vyzygoth: Okay.
The Informer: All right. So if you can't question the public debt, aren't you a slave?
Vyzygoth: Well, you certainly are a palisade.
The Informer: Yeah, right. It's more than the first part, but the second and the third on the 14th Amendment are the critical parts because this is why the courts cannot rule for you because they would be in violation of the 14th Amendment. I think it's the third article of the 14th Amendment, the third paragraph, where they would have to follow the dictates of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Informer: And if you go in and question the public that, which would be a quote, tax protester, they are not to side with the tax protester because they would be in violation of the third paragraph of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Vyzygoth: A couple things real quick. Before the 14th Amendment then, the district was not supported financially by the citizens?
The Informer: It was only supported by trade and tariff. And that's how the country's run because now the income tax actually goes to pay the crown, which is a Federal Reserve. just another name for the crown, and not one penny goes to operate the country. It's all still by trade and tariffs.
Vyzygoth: After I leave, I'm going to check out this website. I'm just going to ask you if this brings a bell at all for you, because I cannot come up with this individual's name. It wasn't a name that I use for you also. I mean, it wasn't his name. Do you remember something on APFN.org that there was somebody who's a female friend or whatever put up his writings on the site and it had to do, he was called the something or other and I can't remember now. It may still be there, I'll have to take a look. And one of the things he said was that if you check out a certain IRS form, something about how it actually goes back to the Crown. Did you ever run into a form that stated such? I mean, and like I said, this is a little murky, so I'll be more exact next time it's on.
The Informer: Well, no, the only thing that traces back to the crown is in the IMF in the 6209 with the 300 code, which is the treaty with the United Kingdom for taxes. That's right, in the 300 code. In the new history of America, I listed part of that in there, the actual part from the individual master file.
The Informer: They've actually changed the IMF code a 300 to 309 of a barred assessment and a CP55 which has generated a valid for a master file transaction code 30. All right. The BMF that's under business master file now naturally would be business because it's all corporation. The 390-399 now reads US-UK tax treaty claims. So we've been in financial servitude since the Treaty of 1783.
Vyzygoth: I mean that's ironic because if we did fight to get free of what we call taxation with representation, we got right back into it again, didn't we?
The Informer: Right, yep. And a little thing, a little offshoot, there's a fella here in North Carolina that has been fighting the property tax thing and claiming, you know, that he should own his property and they shouldn't own it. So when he was into the tax, head tax people down in the area, where he lives, he asked them point blank and he was on also a driver's license issue and it was right across the hall.
The Informer: Well the driver's license issue person happened to see him there and sort of nonchalantly walked over to the property tax person and stood by the door and he asked the property tax, would you tell me what makes me liable to pay this property tax. And the woman sat there for a while and looked up and saw the other woman there. And she says, quote, what do you have in your wallet? End quote. And he looked at her. He had an idea because we talked this over. And he opened his wallet and he took out a Federal Reserve note and he says, do you mean this? And she just said, well, And the other woman from the driver's license thing says, I was going to tell them, but I didn't.
The Informer: It is the use of the Federal Reserve Note, which is a lien note, already has a lien on it. And because of the use of your property and the use of the Federal Reserve Note is what ties you into the tax, any tax. It's all international under the crown, Peppler. And the lawyers are over here to see that they make sure it's turned over. Now here's a definition of a turn, and it comes from the Merriam-Webster's 1996 dictionary.
The Informer: Anglo-French, a turner, to transfer allegiance of a tenant to another lord. From Old French, a turner, to torn, to turn, to arrange. from a to-torner-to-turn, semicolon, to agree to be a tenant of a new landlord or owner of the same property. So an attorney is making sure in feudal law to turn over and transfer the homage and service from one lord to another, which they're doing, and this is the act of fiduciaries, vassals, or tenants upon the alienation of the state. right there.
The Informer: Just those two definitions alone is why they're called attorneys and not lawyers. Not one of them is a lawyer anymore. They're there to make sure that everything is turned over back to the crown. What is rightfully the crown. It becomes more clear as you delve into this And I know your listeners don't want to spend the 10 years that I have on just this matter, let alone the 30 years before that that I was on the rest of the matters of research. It all forms into one nice big picture once you put all the puzzles together.
The Informer: All the little pieces of a puzzle. You start out with one and it's all blue, but then you have a big picture of this nice big seashore background and you've got a blue piece of puzzle and you're wondering what this blue has got to do with the total picture but now when you see the total picture and you got that blue piece in your hand and you finish it by putting it in the center, you know what the picture looks like.
Vyzygoth: Now do all lawyers or attorneys as they're called nowadays, do all of them know this?
The Informer: No, no. They're only taught what the law teacher tells them, the professor. All the professors would know this, all the Supreme Court justices And certain ones of the appellate court judges would know. They have to know this.
Vyzygoth: All right, then those attorneys, whatever, that make the jump eventually to be judges, does somebody pull them off to the side and initiate them?
The Informer: Yeah, they have a special meeting twice a year for all new judges coming in. And they're clued in to some of the stuff. It's sort of like, you know, the Masonic people where they have 33 belts or 33 levels. Degrees, yeah. And those judges, those attorneys that can't make it on the outside as an attorney become judges. And they have to be clued in. And they come in, I would say, probably the 15th level. They still don't know the whole story. So some of the judges, they're just like the Americans. They've been duped. They've only been taught what they're told.
The Informer: The law professors, like I had mentioned, this law professor Robinson, like he said to the friend of mine who went and got the book for me when he had the conversation, he says, we only teach them what we're told to teach them. The professor said this, the professor is told what to teach them and what not to teach them. That's why the majority of lawyers come out and have no idea in concept of what a lot of researchers and the average man uh... that has done some research as to what part of the law and everything else is if i could just ask you a question regarding a little review here all right if i go into court on a murder charge by what law might try when they bring that in that's usually a state case uh... they come into uh...
Vyzygoth: all right they patterned it after a common law but you're actually in a maritime court okay because I thought you said capital offenses were tried by and this is why I'm asking you capital offenses you tried by what law?
The Informer: by common law in other words, robbery, robbery, murder assault and battery that's common law but it is a you know this is the tricky part you got a man in there and you got a court now court becomes the prosecutor, the defendant, and the judge. That's a court. Now, that court, under constitutional law, sets as an admiralty court, under admiralty jurisdiction, but it can also hear other offenses, common law crimes. So now, when the prosecutor terms it and brings in an indictment or a complaint, The judge looks at the complaint, he knows basically what the subject matter is, he knows it's common law, and he sits as a common law judge.
Vyzygoth: Now, for something as menial, let's just say, in comparison, I want to fight a parking ticket. Right. Now, what do I find myself in?
The Informer: A parking ticket is a... Or speeding, you know. Alright, it's a maritime crime, it is not a common law crime. It's a statutory law and all statutory law comes under maritime jurisdiction. It's that simple.
Vyzygoth: Now we've been hearing a lot about people who are trying to use the Constitution in their own self-defense for whatever case it may be.
The Informer: Well they can't use the Constitution as written simply because it was destroyed in 1791 and all states or territories of the United States now. There's no really separation of states. It's only in name only and in certain instances to keep the people ignorant that, oh, the states are separate from the United States. No. Not when you look at all of the motor vehicle laws, like this, 1966, and you go into the Highway Safety Traffic Safety Act in 1966, and that's where all the states were joined into that one territory and they get money.
The Informer: And the reason why you gotta find this, you gotta go back to the book of states of 1937, 1938. There's two volumes in the book of states and it will show you how all the states got together with the United States and were bought under the umbrella of the United States no matter what the laws might be, whether it be driver's license, whether it be voting license, whether it be You name it, it's all territorial, and it all comes under the auspices of the United States.
Vyzygoth: Well, here's a loaded question for you, since I know you've got probably, well, let's see, you said you had 16 pages once upon a time, and you only got through about four. I'm going to take it that you have some bunch of pages left, and you will come back for a third second, won't you?
The Informer: Oh yeah, I'll come back. There are, well, if people record your show, the words that they have to listen, to look up is a torn esquire, rule as a noun, regulation as a noun, code as a noun, curtain, court, go and look in the court under the Webster's 1828 and the Newberry House Dictionary in 1999, Templar, All 1828 dictionaries. Temple, capital.
The Informer: If you think capital, you know what the capital word means. You've got a big thing coming. Inner. Crown. Colony. State. Estate. Patent. In the adjective. Patent in the verb. Lawful, legal, status quo, status in quo, and that's what the definition is that the people should look up in those dictionaries.
Vyzygoth: I'm going to take a look around the Library Survival requirement. We've been talking with the informer, Iman. Thank you very much. People can find out about you on againstthegrainpress.com and we'll be looking forward to hearing you for a third time. Okay. Alright, God bless you and thank you. Thank you.