Ep. 350 - The Informer - Part 4

0:38Vyzygoth: It's the grassy knoll on this May 4th 2006 and we're doing this from the land known as Braddock Pines down here in Florida and not on AM 1400 WZHR so I can tell you now because of that that indeed the views expressed on the grassy knoll are those of the management which I am and the staff which is I which I am and And not the advertisers because we don't have any. So at any rate, we're free of that particular disclaimer. But what we're doing today is rejoining the informer who's been with us for what? Three parts, I believe. And met a little hardware problem there for a while and had to check on his health and such.

1:21Vyzygoth: But he's back with us and we're glad he is. There's a lot of people that want to hear what you have to say. I mean, thanks very much for coming back to the grassy knoll. Oh, thanks. I don't mind it at all. I hope you feel more comfortable. I mean, you had a lot of doubts, I guess. You know, you expressed as much in emails that went back and forth between us. But you make it right. I mean, a lot of people who had questions about this, in the sense that they might have been naysayers, or critics aren't necessarily in that status right now. So thanks a lot for coming on and let me just get this down before we start.

2:03Vyzygoth: If people want to, either right now or when they listen to this in the archives, check out what you've written about, much about what you're going to speak to today. They can do so at informerarchives.com. Is that correct? Yeah, that's right. All right, and I put a link that would bring them right to your particular portion or section of that website so they can hit on that. If you go to visigot.com and look in either in the upcoming shows or in the audio, which we still have the last three segments with the I-Man, you'll be able to get right to his page. So if he refers to such, I know I'm going to go there and I would suggest you do too. I want to also add one other change if I could before we get into the good stuff, and that is if you want to IM, instant message, you can.

2:56Vyzygoth: You can do it via MSN, all right, that would be Bizigoth, or at Yahoo, and that would be Biz, BYZ 1400. So if you want to shoot a question to the IMN, you may do that, this is all brand new, I don't expect to take it, for it all to take it one time, and that's what we'll do now. In time to come, I might install an 800 number, but first things first. If you want to get in touch with us, please add my MSM Messenger, which is Visigoth, or also add Yahoo, which is biz 1400 or shoot me an email which I'm checking all throughout this time at visit got that hotmail.com.

3:40Vyzygoth: It's v y z y Go th now, where shall we start a white man?

3:46The Informer: Well, I had wrote a letter to a researcher who was got some flack from a nice air down in Texas and I just kind of blew off some steam with the letter that I had to him. So I had been running through a lot of my stuff, wondering what I could use for this show. And I decided, well, I'll just try this letter first. And like I say, it is a letter and it's probably about 10 or 12 pages. And it's got a lot of meat in it that I was expressing to him of what to look for because he didn't have the information that I had.

4:28The Informer: to rebut the naysayer that was, you know, cognitive dissonance took over its place because it's so foreign to the mind that, you know, once a lie is started and there's been a lie for 200 years, people tend to believe the lie. And when the truth hits them, you know, they still tend to believe the lie because the truth is so foreign that they feel it's got to be a lie. So that's why I just picked this letter. And like I say, it is in letter form and I'll be reading it. Um, so, you know, I hope it isn't dry for them.

5:08Vyzygoth: Well, I mean, just before you start, you know, I'm really bad about interrupting you, but when you say it's been alive for 200 years, you know, the length of time, does it make it any more true or true at all? But aren't we really facing the situation though? I'm in that it's been a lot of lies that were constructed 200 years ago. And we really, most of us have never hit upon the fact that we're encompassed by them.

5:33The Informer: Right, right. That's true. It's just like all the lies that, you know, the president says and the government says today that, well, even like Roosevelt during the war, you know, there was lies that the Japs, you know, came after us when, in fact, Roosevelt right after he got into office in 1933 wanted to create a war with Japan because it had to protect the Rockefeller's oil fields in China. And it wasn't known until, you know, just recently of what FDR did and how bad he was.

6:12The Informer: And he allowed the attack to happen to go the people into standing behind him to Institute World War II. So, you know, A lot of things come out, you know, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50 years later. But this is so big that they can't allow this truth to come out. And it's by going through a lot of different cases and reading the actual words of the cases. And it's put me in mind of just recently the fact that today's kids can't even locate most of the states in the country.

6:50Vyzygoth: What, did you hear that yesterday?

6:53The Informer: Well, I had seen that quite a few times before on the emails before it hit the major, you know, news media. But that's the truth because I've dealt with a lot of kids and I used to be with Boy Scouts for 24 years and I could see the dumbing down of the kids because in the Boy Scouts we teach them a lot of other stuff. and a lot of it's, you know, compass and geography and stuff like this. And I found from 1970 all the way up to 1989, gee, you know, the kids are getting dumber, you know? They're not getting smarter.

7:36The Informer: And there's a lot of things like that. So when you go in to read these cases and you know the English language and grammar and how to diagram a sentence, which When I went to school, that's all we did was diagram sentences. But see, since 1990, I used that a lot when I wrote my books and diagramming sentences. And to get at the meat of what it was and what they were really saying, not what just appeared to be what they were saying on, you know, in the words. And of course, they changed the words to be a term. And any time you see the word term, I'd say the word term, but any time you see term, in a statute, it's different than if it was a word.

8:22The Informer: In other words, they take corn and it's a word. And if they say the term corn means, then it's what that means, not what the word corn means, like corn on a cob, you eat it, it's food, you know. So you have to know what the statute says well what the law says and if it is couched in terms or is it couched in words and because most of it is all statute it's all couched in terms and on ATG Press there is a site in there that says terms not words and that would be good for people to read and if they also want to become educated in it is to go and get a book on diagramming sentences and start playing around with small sentences.

9:20The Informer: And you'd be amazed at what they find out as the predicate and what's the adverb and what's the subject. You know, they all come into play.

9:30Vyzygoth: But how so? I mean, is it because you have to, for instance, identify, shall we say, a parenthetical clause? Right. I guess a non-restrictive clause they would call it, which if you pull out

9:45The Informer: If you pull out the parenthetical clause and it still makes sense, then you can throw the parenthetical clause away.

9:53Vyzygoth: If it's there, sometimes it does color differently the entire sentence.

9:57The Informer: Yes, it does. They want you to believe it means that, and it really doesn't mean that.

10:05Vyzygoth: I mean, we all have to admit though, everything from legislation to your insurance policy is such written obfuscation that it does exactly what I guess it's intended to do and that is make the reader tire and just get exhausted.

10:20The Informer: Yeah, it does. And, you know, I used to sit down and read every little fine print and everything and my wife would always say, What are you doing that for? Sign it. I said, yeah, OK. I'll sign it. Are you going to sign your life away? And after a few years of that, she really got not annoyed anymore. And I said, see this. If I didn't read this, this is what we would be paying. And she realized that the fine print means a lot.

10:50Vyzygoth: Yes, it does.

10:51The Informer: You know, when they say fine print, sometimes it's bolded and big words. And that is actually considered fine print in law.

11:00Vyzygoth: Well, I mean they can do it right in your face. It's the way in which they do it right and at what point they put it in I mean because if they can put it, you know 17 paragraphs deep You're likely not to get there. No, no, so not necessarily fine print, but certainly buried for your Yeah, well most of the time, you know if people really sat down and read it they wouldn't sign the contract Yeah, well I'll tell you what, that's happened on the internet when you have this bit about I agree. You don't read everything.

11:32The Informer: No.

11:32Vyzygoth: And you don't know what you're agreeing to. Right. And we all do that and that is a real perilous practice.

11:40The Informer: Yeah, it is. They should read, even if they take one, just read one of the things like if you go onto a line and they say join this club or in order to go to the radio station or for the TV station, You have to agree to the terms. You don't have to read them all. Just take one and read entirely through the terms. Most of them will be shocked at what they got themselves into when they agreed.

12:13Vyzygoth: Therefore, where are we now?

12:16The Informer: Let me start with this letter. This letter was to a friend. We were talking about the John Byron case. This fellow was supposedly a guru. And he was claiming that he never won, never lost the case, and he was doing this. And I had sent a letter to him in email, and I told him he was wrong and so on and so forth. And of course, you know, and they said, no, he was right and I was wrong and so on and so forth. Well, after a while, it got to him and he started reading something up on it. And he wrote to this guy and he says, you know what, I just found something in the 2000 now. He says, I just found something that I couldn't believe it.

13:00The Informer: And it wasn't my stuff, but it was based on my stuff that I told him before, previously about six months to look at it. And he says, man, I got to rethink all my stuff. So this guy wrote me the letter and sent me what he sent him. And I says, yep, so this is why I wrote the letter back to this fella and say, well, you could use a lot of this stuff to show him. Because I didn't want to be bothered with arguing with him because it never gets anywhere. So this one here, I did have a constitutional law book titled Cases of Constitutional Law. And it's right in Cases on John Barron. And it's more than 1,086 pages. There are cases in there that did not that weren't brought up, they were just important.

13:46The Informer: And I says to them, one being Hepburn and Dundee's versus LZ. And it's two-cranch 445 in case any of the listeners want to pull it, which I suggest they do. Would you repeat that, please? It's Hepburn and Dundas, D-U-N-D-A-S, versus LZ, E-L-L-E-Z-Y. And they can find it not online, I doubt it. It's in the library. And it's 2 CRANCH 445. CRANCH is the clerk of the court back those days.

14:26The Informer: And any time you see CRANCH or a name after it, that means that the case is before they gave it US code numbers. And it was the clerk of the court. And that's why this particular one is CRANCH.

14:40Vyzygoth: All right, so when you see that, it predates

14:43The Informer: Oh, it's like in the 1790s and the early 1800s.

14:48Vyzygoth: What is your guess as to when this case was adjudicated?

14:54The Informer: I do have the case here, but I can't reach it.

14:58Vyzygoth: That's okay.

14:59The Informer: And I think it was right around 1800, 1802. Okay. And there it says, Now this is where, you know, people have to read it. It's hard to understand it on the radio, but the words are there and when they read it, it's different. You know what I mean? A citizen of the District of Columbia cannot maintain an action against a citizen of Virginia in the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia. A citizen of the District of Columbia is not a citizen of a state within the meaning of the Constitution.

15:44The Informer: That's the quote. And I said to the fellow, reading this, it goes way over people's heads and they're not aware. As Montgomery found out, the President of Washington created the states as districts in 1791. Hence the phrase, District of Virginia in the above case. See, people looking at it, District of Virginia, you know, just goes over the head. You know, what is the District of Virginia? Well, it's not Virginia, that's for sure. Like I said, it's important to get the case and read it. It's right with info that will wipe out the myth that the people had had on jurisdiction.

16:20Vyzygoth: One quick question, but when you hear about people going to district court, is that a result of that kind of terminology?

16:28The Informer: Yeah, because you see, when Washington created the districts in 1791, it was because of the banks. And they had to have districts because they had control of the banks and they would not allow the states to control the banks. And that's why the McCulloch, Maryland versus McCulloch was brought up when Chief Justice John Marshall made the ruling on that and that was in a district court. So what they did is when he overlaid over the physical ground a state called a district, it was a fiction. And that's why it was district courts in district states and they broke up the states into different districts.

17:12The Informer: Some states being small would have one district court, other states being large would have maybe four or five district courts located in different parts of the state. Like North Carolina has the middle district, the eastern district and the western district. So there's three distinct districts, but they're in the District of North Carolina. They don't say that, but in this case, they bring it out and it says, in the District of Virginia. All right. So what happened was, they're not on the same footing in the District of Columbia, and the plaintiff could not sue in Virginia. So the defense brought up this, and this is a statement of the defense.

17:58The Informer: Even if the Constitution of the United States authorizes a more enlarged jurisdiction than that the Judiciary Act of 1789 has given, yet the court can take no jurisdiction which is not given by that act. Therefore, call for the law which gives a jurisdiction in the case." And the quote, this is what the defense was asking the court to bring it in.

18:26The Informer: Now the response was given by the plaintiff to rebut the above statement, but the court overlooked that and the court gave its decision and sided with the defense when Justice Marshall said, quote, the opinion to be certified to the circuit court is that that court has no jurisdiction in the case, case dismissed. So basically the Judiciary Act of 1789 is what gives the federal courts their jurisdiction, not the Congress as so many people believe. And as the defense attorney said, if it's not to be found, the jurisdiction in that act, that's the 1789, the federal court does not have it today.

19:08The Informer: They just willy nilly take whatever they want, but no one, uh, that's why these old cases are so important because it gives a lot of information as to what truly is going on. And people have been bought up not knowing this. And not knowing that the 1789 Judiciary Act, which was created, is the only act that gives any of the federal district courts their jurisdiction. So here you have direct admission that the lawyers back then were dictating the parameters in which the court had jurisdiction. So I cited this in the American Bar by Charles Warren and the book, the new history, I told the fellow he might pay to reread it in light of the revelation, of this revelation, the guy was talking about.

20:00The Informer: So then I said, okay, now let's go back to Byron. In the constitutional book, it was printed in 1968, it states, quote, while most rights in the Bill of Rights now do apply to the states, they do so only because they are essential to due process of law The ruling in the present case that the bill of rights does not apply directly to the States has never been overruled.

20:26Vyzygoth: All right. That sounds to me like they're using a bill of rights, like a light switch. Yeah. Sometimes on, sometimes off. That's right.

20:33The Informer: Well, now in, um, 1896, Baron was brought up again and Brown versus Walker, and they broached it on self-incrimination. And now I'm talking about the book, the constitutional book, because it explains in detail, it actually annotates what the court is saying. In 1956, the court reaffirmed the Brown decision in Ullman v. United States.

21:01The Informer: It rejected the defendant's argument that the impact of the disabilities imposed by federal and state authorities and the public in general, such as loss of job, expulsion from labor unions, state registration, and investigation statutes, passport eligibility, and general public oprahrum, is so oppressive that the statute does not give him true immunity. The statute, like the Fifth Amendment provision, protects the witness only from having to give testimony which may possibly expose him to a criminal charge. That is what the book says.

21:38The Informer: They also said, since Congress needs not grant immunity from state prosecution in order to compel testimony, the question arises whether it may do so if it wishes, right? The control over evidence admissible in state courts is traditionally a question of state power and even the Supreme Court in administering the due process clause has been reluctant to interfere with his state prerogative. In Adams v. Maryland, 1954, the court held that Congress could, under the supremacy doctrine, forbid a state to use testimony given before a congressional committee.

22:15The Informer: Adams had been summoned before the State Senate Crimes Investigation, that's Kiefoffer Committee, and had bared his soul concerning his boob making activities.

22:28Vyzygoth: What would that be?

22:28The Informer: Boob.

22:30Vyzygoth: He's making implants?

22:32The Informer: It's a misprint. Oh. That's what it says, the boob making activities.

22:37Vyzygoth: Yes it does.

22:38The Informer: Maybe he was into porn or something, I don't know. Anyway, the state of Maryland, which had been unable to get other evidence against Adam, read the transcript of the committee hearing into the trial record as a confession and he was convicted on illegal gambling. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction on the ground that 859 forbade the use of such testimony, quote, in any criminal proceeding against him in any court, end quote. The term there is any court. While Congress could not compel testimony under the statute, such testimony as was given was protected. And the phrase in any court included state courts as well as federal.

23:21The Informer: Forbidding such use of the testimony was held to be necessary and proper way of securing testimony. The Immunity Act of 1954 uses the same language and the Adams interpretation was reaffirmed in the court in the Hallman case. In the present case, the federal grand jury was investigating charges against the railroad that had granted discriminatory rates and rebates. Brown, who was the officer of the railroad, was called as a witness but refused to answer certain questions. On the ground that the answers would tend to accuse him and incriminate him. He was a judge and content for his refusal to answer. Now I'm going to read what the court says.

24:00The Informer: Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the court saying in part, it is true that the constitution does not operate upon a witness testifying in state courts. So therefore, if you're in a state court, you can't use the fifth amendment. All right. Since we have held that the first eight amendments are limitations only upon the powers of Congress and the federal courts and are not applicable to the several states, except so far as the fourteenth amendment may have made them applicable and they cite Byron v. Baltimore 1833.

24:41The Informer: There is no such restriction, however, upon the applicability of federal statutes. The court here quotes the Supremacy Clause in Article 6. It says, the act in question contains no suggestion that is to be applied only to federal courts. It declares broadly that no person shall be excused from attending and testifying before the Interstate Commerce Commission on the ground that the testimony required of him may tend to incriminate him. But no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing concerning which he may testify, etc.

25:22The Informer: It is not that he shall not be prosecuted for or on account of any crime concerning which he may testify, which might possibly be urged to apply only to crimes under the federal law. But the immunity extends to any transaction, matter or thing concerning which he may testify, which clearly indicates that the immunity is intended to be general. and not to be hacked with a couple whenever and in whatever court such prosecution may be had. Now, it's quite lengthy. It goes on to more and more, but I won't bore you with a lot of that stuff.

25:59The Informer: But anyway, they had a dissenting opinion, and Justice White and Gray and Shearer's wrote the, and Field wrote a separate dissent to that, which amounted to nothing, but the case was decided anyway. Now, to show you how powerful Barron was in Powell versus Alabama in 1932, and then in Palco versus Connecticut in 1937, Barron was brought up again. And here's the comment in the book. When the decision in Powell versus Alabama appeared, that a long struggle to nationalize the Bill of Rights might at least be bearing fruit. You got that? Nationalizing the Bill of Rights?

26:43The Informer: The Bill of Rights in Barron v. Baltimore was strictly for the United States and not anybody in the states, not to the states, nobody but only those 207 inhabitants of Washington, D.C.

26:57Vyzygoth: What is Barron's, by the way, or who is Barron's?

27:00The Informer: That was 32 U.S. 243. It was on a writ of error to the court of appeals for the Western shore of the state of Maryland. And the guy used the provision in the fifth amendment that declaring the private property should not be taken for public use without just compensation. And he bought it in because of the city of Baltimore under its corporate title of mayor in the city of Baltimore to recover damages to the wharf property of the plaintiff arising from the acts of the corporation. Maryland is a corporation. Baltimore is a corporation.

27:39The Informer: If people would only realize that the entire government, anywhere in this country, is a corporation, that makes everything totally different. They are a corporate entity. How does that impact them, though, if they understand that in fact... Because they're part of the corporation, and that's why they are drugged into the court and everything is denied. They have no inalienable rights or unalienable rights. They only have granted rights by the corporation because they're presumed to be a corporate member.

28:14Vyzygoth: So, okay.

28:15The Informer: So the case was instituted in a plaintiff near against the city of Baltimore under its corporate title of the mayor and city of council of Baltimore to recover damages for injuries to the wharf of the sky arising from the acts of the town. And they really messed up his border, his wharf, everything, and he couldn't even use it, couldn't do any business off of it or anything. And then he brought up the Fifth Amendment. Well, gee, the city took my property and never reimbursed me for it under the Fifth Amendment. Okay? Well, he's in Maryland. Okay? So he's thinking, okay, the Fifth Amendment applies. The Bill of Rights apply to me.

28:58The Informer: Well, the court goes in and explains every one of the Bill of Rights and says they do not apply to you. You are not a part of the United States that would be contravening the fifth article of the amendments and therefore your private property can be taken for public use and you can't use the Bill of Rights. It don't make, don't apply to you.

29:26The Informer: And it goes in through every one of them and Justice Marshall came out and it says, the plaintiff in the error contends that it comes within the clause in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution which inhibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. He insists that this amendment being in favor of the liberty of the citizen ought to be so construed as to restrain the legislative power of a state. as well as that of the United States. If this proposition be untrue, the court can take no jurisdiction of the cause. The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty.

30:06The Informer: The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government and not for the government of the individual states. How do you like that?

30:21Vyzygoth: You want to translate that?

30:23The Informer: That means that, like I said, when Congress, which is the United States, set up the Bill of Rights, it was only for them and their constituents in the District of Columbia for their own government and not for any of the governments of the individual states. He says each state established a constitution for itself and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as the judgment dictated. The people of the United States, talk about the states.

31:02The Informer: This is where people have got to learn the United States is not the United States what they believe to be. The United States is that little a bunch of criminals, the 535 people called Congress. In other words, Congress is doing business as the United States. Plain and simple, that's the bottom line of the whole thing.

31:24Vyzygoth: Now, is the United States of America a different thing?

31:27The Informer: Nope. The United States of America. Of is, if you go to the dictionary, any dictionary means belonging to. Are you not of your mother and father?

31:38Vyzygoth: Right, right.

31:39The Informer: Okay. I just stated that you are of belonging to or from your mother and father.

31:48Vyzygoth: And what does the word America do to change the color of the United States?

31:53The Informer: The United States belonging to America. America is the country. The United States is not the country.

31:59Vyzygoth: Ah.

32:00The Informer: America is the country. If you go back into the old, old books, And you get some of the old letters that I have. The people in Europe call this America. They didn't call it the United States. Oh, well, we're going to America. We find that there are many things in America that we would like. And on and on, I have reams of letters back dated in 1600 all the way up to 1790.

32:31The Informer: And they all, and if you go in some of the old, old archives in the different states, and you look at the archives, you'll see America written across North America, separating Canada and Mexico. And it is termed, not the United States like it is today, it's termed America. Why have a song, America the Beautiful? Why not the United States be the beautiful?

32:57Vyzygoth: And God bless America.

32:59The Informer: not God bless the United States.

33:01Vyzygoth: Well, was America always used to be expanded to what we're seeing threatened now? And that is some kind of in-race sovereignty between Canada, the United States and Mexico. I mean, actually we're all Americans, aren't we?

33:15The Informer: Yeah, what it is is Mexico is mainly Spanish and was owned by Spain, even Louisiana and parts of New Mexico and parts of California and the Baja, down the Baja Peninsula. That was all owned by Spain. And we overtook it and pushed them out and we actually, like they did to the American Indians here, they just, you know, the white people came in and took everything over and then they just The French owned part of it, and especially in Canada. And then the French helped down here in the revolution in the fighting and so on and so forth. And in fact, a little known part in history is the French was the first ones to do the scalping and then they blamed it on the American Indian.

34:00The Informer: The American Indian picked it up from the French.

34:02Vyzygoth: That was payback.

34:03The Informer: Yeah. But, you know, all these things that people don't have any general knowledge of, that if they did, They'd boot this government out faster than you could let it match.

34:16Vyzygoth: The only problem is, though, what do you replace it with?

34:19The Informer: Well, that's the problem. You'd have to replace it. Now, I've always thought, hey, if everybody claims, oh, gee, this is divinely inspired. Well, it wasn't. And everything was under God, and everybody was talking about it. Why not put His law as the law of the land?

34:38Vyzygoth: Are you asking me? Sure, why not? Well, I tell you what, you're asking somebody who feels that if we were under divine law, we'd have a whole lot better society.

34:50The Informer: Oh yeah, we did, we would. A lot of people don't like it. That's why there are so many fractions. That's why, you know, the Lord never created a religion. Nothing like Catholic, Buddhist, libertarian, you know, there was no religion. It's not a religion. There was all these offshoots that came off, you know, like the Episcopalians broke off from the Catholics, most of it. The Lutherans and the Baptists and they're all offshoots of someone that didn't like what was going on in the Catholic part and decided that they would create their own religion. That's all it is. But if you read in the Bible, he never created a religion. His church was his law and it was on this rock, which meant the earth.

35:34The Informer: You know, I set my church upon this rock. He wasn't talking about Peter or anybody else, you know. That was his law, his constitution, and if you want it, okay. If you want to have Mammon take over you, well, go ahead. But don't come complaining to me that, you know, Mammon is doing this to you. You wanted it. You have free choice. You have free will. It's either my way or their way. And if it's their way, don't bother me.

36:03Vyzygoth: Well, I would agree that there is this thought that the founding fathers were just so predominantly Christian. Oh, yeah, they were. You think they were? Sure. Okay, because I don't think necessarily what they wrote as the Constitution reflects it. I think that... Oh, no.

36:20The Informer: No, that wasn't. That was the works of the Crown in 1783 in the treaty. That was the That was the initiating point for creating the Constitution to allow the people to be free, but not the governments themselves and the plantations because the Crown still wanted to control them.

36:39Vyzygoth: And would you say that, for instance, Jefferson and Franklin, who were pretty heavy hitters in that whole crew, were less Christian as they were, probably rationalists?

36:50The Informer: Yeah, because after all, you remember all those people that had the Constitution had property over in England. It wasn't just here. They were millionaires over in England, and they were here. And the crown says, you do it our way, or we're going to seize every piece of property you got over here, and you ain't going to have squat. And we'll run a blockade against the United States because you don't have a Navy. We got all the Navy we want. We'll run a blockade against you. So if you don't count out to what we tell you to do, you're dead meat. So what would they do? If you owned millionaires and had castles and loads of property in Europe and you came over here and you started to fight with them and saying all this stuff and they said well hey we're gonna take all your planes and your boats and your trains and your Ferraris and your castles and everything and you ain't gonna have nothing what would you do?

37:48The Informer: Revolt? Well, yeah. You'd revolt or you'd say, okay, don't take my stuff off. What do you want me to do?

37:53Vyzygoth: Oh, you want me to do? Okay.

37:54The Informer: Yeah. That's what they did.

37:56Vyzygoth: All right.

37:59The Informer: So anyway, in Barron, that's what they said. In other words, each state established a constitution and all this. So the powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power are, and expressed in general terms, are naturally, we think, necessarily applicable to the government created by the instrument. That means the Constitution. There are limitations and powers in the instrument and it goes on and talks about that. But the bottom line was, if these propositions be correct, the Fifth Amendment must be understood as restraining the power of general government, not as applicable to the states. That's why he couldn't do it.

38:41The Informer: The Council for the Plaintiff and Heir insisted the Constitution was intended to secure the people of the several states against the undue exercise of power by the respective state governments, as well as against that which might be attempted by the general government, which meant the United States. In support of this argument, he relies on the inhibitions contained in the tenth section of the first article. We think that section affords a strong, if not a conclusive, argument in support of the opinion already indicated by the court. That means that you're screwed people in the state. You can't use the Bill of Rights.

39:21The Informer: So they go into the ninth section and the nature of the Bill of Rights intended to be imposed on the powers of the general government. The ten proceeds to enumerate those which operate on the state. The restrictions are brought together in the same section. and they are suppressed and words applied to the states, quote, no state shall enter into any treaty, etc. Perceiving that in a constitutional framed by the people of the United States, not the states now.

39:52The Informer: For the government of all, no limitation of the action of the government on the people would apply to the state government unless expressed in terms the restrictions contained in the tenth section are in direct words, so applied to the states. That's the only thing in the Bill of Rights that applied to the states, but not the people.

40:12Vyzygoth: What's it there between the states and the people? Pardon? What's the difference between the states and the people? Are they seen as being different?

40:21The Informer: No. If you go read the definition in ATG Press on person, there's just a little caption on there. Scroll down and find person and you open that up. It will tell you what the people means. People are a body politic, are part of the corporation.

40:46The Informer: So if you're a people and you refer to you as a people of the state of, or the people of the United States, that means that you are a part and parcel of the body politic in your corporate capacity, no longer having the man distinction, but person distinction, which is a fiction.

41:08Vyzygoth: Where does that definition come from? Is that from Blacks? Pardon? Where do those definitions come from?

41:14The Informer: Oh, it comes out of the LaSalle Law Review by, oh, it goes back to the Roman times. Okay. Yeah. It's all in there. It goes all the way back and tells you where the entomology of the word originated from. Okay. At the end of the court of the Barron case, we are of the opinion that the provision of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring the private property should not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation of the power by the government of the United States and is not applicable to the legislation of any state.

41:56The Informer: We are therefore of the opinion there's no repugnancy between the several acts of the Assembly of Maryland given the evidence by the defendants at the trial that the Constitution And this court therefore has no jurisdiction of the cause and it is dismissed. The guy lost good use of Bill of Rights. Now, going back to the letter that I was writing to this guy, there are some rather interesting things because, you know, they're quoting the Barron case. It will tell you where the Fifth Amendment do now come in, but not as a Fifth Amendment.

42:41The Informer: It's hard to understand that, but in reading this you might come in. The Court acknowledged that it no longer felt bound by the Hercato reasoning. The application of the states to the Fifth Amendment rights to just compensation and the First Amendment rights to free speech, press, religion, and assembly showed that some of the Bill of Rights guarantees could be applied to the states through due process of law. And now in the PAL, the Court for the first time had found one of the rights of persons accused of crime to be essential to due process.

43:19The Informer: The PALCO case printed below made clear that the Court was not prepared to abandon the earlier decisions such as Hurtado and Twinning. Instead, it undertook to explain why some rights, such as the rights to counsel and free speech, are absorbed into due process and why others, now get this, like jury trial and grand jury indictment, are not brought into due process. It should be emphasized that the cases absorbing rights into, now here's where the due process comes from, the 14th Amendment. Do not overrule Barron v. Baltimore 1820.

44:01The Informer: The provisions of the federal Bill of Rights still limit directly only the federal government. It is the 14th Amendment which limits the states. What the Court has done is to reverse the practical effect of the rule in Barron v. Baltimore with respect to part, but not all, of the Bill of Rights. Some of these rights are still not considered by the court to be so fundamental as to be required by due process of law.

44:34The Informer: The court in case after case has been classifying the provisions of the Bill of Rights into those which are essential to due process of law and thus bind the states to operation of the 14th Amendment and those which are not essential due to process by which the states are not bound. In effect, the court has established an honor roll of superior rights which both bind both the state and national governments. The opinion in the present case is important since it gives an official summary of the classification up to 1937 and states clearly the principles upon which the classification rests.

45:18Vyzygoth: All right. Now can I just focus because the Fourteenth Amendment comes up again. Yep. And when you look at the language a lot of times it seems pretty, let's just say, innocent. Yet we all know that something took place there. Right. What was it that happened to us with the Fourteenth Amendment being ratified?

45:42The Informer: Well, really it wasn't ratified and it is unconstitutional. But, you know, we've got to go with what the controlling power says it is because they're ruling everybody here, and it doesn't matter what we say, what things ought to be, it's reality has what is. So this part here would probably bring it up. In another situation for a very different purpose, the court classified the provisions of the Federal Bill of Rights in fixing the constitutional status of territories Got that? Territories after the war with Spain.

46:19The Informer: The court held that the governing unincorporated territories, such as Puerto Rico and the Philippines, Congress was restricting only those guarantees in the Bill of Rights, which are basic and fundamental, and which are not those which are merely procedural or remedial, such as the guarantee of right to trial by jury. See, Balzac versus Puerto Rico. and the classification came in Palco versus Connecticut. One question on which the Palco case failed to answer satisfactorily was it meant by absorption or incorporation of a Bill of Rights guarantee in the due process.

46:58The Informer: Did it mean that the right as listed in the Bill of Rights and interpreted by the Supreme Court in federal cases was made applicable to the states or was the right as applied to the states a more general right less clearly defined and permitting more leeway and discretion on the parts of the states. That's the two questions that's asked in this by these law professors. Clearly, incorporation of the First Amendment has meant its application to the states exactly as it's applied to the national government. Justice Brandeis and Holmes and their dissent in the Gitlow case suggested that the free speech applicable to the states perhaps, quote, may be accepted with a somewhat larger latitude of interpretation than is allowed to Congress by the sweeping language that governs or ought to govern the laws of the United States.

47:47The Informer: They say the laws of the states. The court, however, has never acknowledged such a distinction and the same rules for deciding such cases are applied to states and nation alike with the gradual extension of due process to include other rights. So, in other words, You know, they bought everything in through the 14th Amendment. Now another case is United States versus Lanza, and that was just as Taft delivered the opinion.

48:20The Informer: Here we have two Sovereignies deriving power from different sources capable of dealing with the same subject matter within the territory, each made without interference by the other and act laws to secure prohibition. with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the amendment. Each government, in determining what it shall be in offense against its peace and dignity, is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other. They're talking about the difference between the United States, Congress, and the states. The Fifth Amendment, like all other guarantees in the First Eight Amendments, applies only to proceedings in the federal government, Barron v. Baltimore, brings it right up.

48:59The Informer: And double jeopardy there in forbidden in a second prosecution under authority of the federal government after a first trial for the same offense under the same authority. Hey, wait a minute. What happened up there in the Andy Weaver case? Didn't they come in with the state and the federal? Can't do it. Not according to this. Now had that attorney or whoever it was been fighting for him bought up Baron versus Baltimore, he would not have been put in double jeopardy, which he was.

49:31Vyzygoth: But doesn't that happen one after the other? This was coincidental. Doesn't it apply necessarily to being tried?

49:39The Informer: No, because I'll read what it says. Here, the same act was an offense against the state of Washington because of violation of its law and also an offense against the United States under the National Prohibition Act. The defendant has committed two different offenses by the same act and a conviction by a court of Washington of the offense against the state is not a conviction of a different offense against the United States and so is not double jeopardy. See how they got around it?

50:11The Informer: If Congress sees fit-to-bar prosecution by the federal courts for any act when punishment for violation of state provision has been opposed, it can, of course, do so by proper legislative provision, but it has not done so. If a state were to punish the manufacture, transportation, or sale of intoxicating liquor by smaller nominal fees, The race of offenders to the courts of that state to plead guilty and secure immunity from federal prosecution for such acts would not make for the respect of the federal statute or for its deterrent effect. That is not for us to discuss the wisdom of legislation. See, they don't want to get involved with that.

50:55The Informer: is enough for us to hold that. In the absence of special provision by Congress, conviction and punishment in a state court under a state law for making, transporting, and selling intoxicating liquors is not a bar to a prosecution in the court of the United States under federal law for the same act. The judgment reversed.

51:13Vyzygoth: Let's go back. There's something I noticed, and I'd like you not to leave us too soon. Okay. If a state were to punish the manufacturer of transportation and sale of intoxicating liquor by small or nominal fines, the race of offenders to the courts of that state to plead guilty and secure immunity from federal prosecution for such acts would not make for respect of the federal statute. Now, would you break that down for us? In other words, what I'm thinking is, if somebody's committing an offense that would necessarily bring it, I'm assuming, from one state to another, they'll plead, take the route from the state, and look at the federal government and say, I already paid the price.

51:51The Informer: Right. Right. That's basically what it says. But here's the kick. All right? All right. Here's the kick. This case was in 1922.

52:05Vyzygoth: Obviously, during Prohibition.

52:06The Informer: Yeah. And it was also before the War Powers Act was declared that made every state a territory of the United States.

52:17Vyzygoth: Now, let me just stop you there. The War Powers Act making every state a territory? Yep. Is that any different than what you had spoken about when Washington made them all districts?

52:29The Informer: No, that was different. Can you tell us why that's different? Okay. Under the War Powers, that was, well, Washington created the First War, used the First War Powers Act to create the district courts and bring in the Bank of the United States, the first bank in the United States, which was a foreign-owned concern by the Bank of England and had nothing to do with anybody owning anything in the United States. And I have the actual document here, I can't put my hands on it because it's out in the garage, that says that Judge Justice John Marshall owned 7,800 some odd shares of the bank as a foreign investor. Oh wait a minute, everybody would say, ain't that the bank in the United States?

53:14The Informer: Yeah. Well, if I set up a bank in France, I could call it the first bank in France, huh? But it has nothing to do with France. It has everything to do with me. Well, that's what happened. The first bank of the United States was set up by the Exchequer or the Crown or PKA, the Bank of England.

53:37Vyzygoth: Alright, now the Crown, once again, let's just focus on that.

53:40The Informer: It's been a while since... Yeah, the Crown is not like everybody believes when you talk about the Crown, the King or Queen of England. The Crown was that little thing called the City of London. where it ruled the king. It gave all the king the money, and it's just like here today. The Federal Reserve is nothing to do with the U.S. government. It is a private consortium of the Bank of England.

54:07Vyzygoth: So using the United States name in a bank charter, they could have named it the Bank of Mongolia.

54:14The Informer: Oh yeah, it's just like United States Van Line, or United Van Line, or anything that has the United States in it. doesn't necessarily mean it's the United States.

54:24Vyzygoth: And obviously you know the Federal Reserve by throwing in the word federal. Right. Made us all believe and that's one of the greatest canards there is today in this country. Oh yeah. That even bankers though, I man, bankers don't even know that the Federal Reserve is a private bank. It's got nothing to do with the government.

54:41The Informer: I know. They're just as dumbed down as the people of this country because after all they came from the same schools, didn't they?

54:48Vyzygoth: Duh. I know, but when you're in the business, you think that, you know, but you know what it is? You're told this, you're indoctrinated, you don't look behind the curtain, and so you go on.

54:58The Informer: Right, like the Wizard of Oz. Well, that's like when my mother was paying everything in U.S. coin here and for property taxes and so on and so forth, and they wouldn't accept the U.S. coin. And I went down with her, and I explained everything to the commissioner down there in the tax bureau. And he said to my mother, God is my witness, he says, well, you know the banks run this country, don't you?

55:28Vyzygoth: Well, good for him.

55:29The Informer: Yeah. So he knew. But, you know, this guy was an old timer. This guy was about 72 years old. So he grew up knowing what was going on.

55:39Vyzygoth: Well, let me ask you this. I mean, could you divide from his attitude that he was pompous about it or that he was saying, you know, isn't this a bitch?

55:49The Informer: That's basically what he was saying. Okay. To my mom. The latter. Coming out with the words like that. But anyway, he walked over to the clerk and he says, you will accept these coin as payment for the tax. And she had it all out. It was all wrapped up. I said, hey, why don't you weigh one, open it up. It was got You know, Susan B's was $25 in it. And I says, open it up, make sure it's got $25 on it, put it on a scale, weigh it, get how many many ounces it weighs, put every one on there, and if it doesn't come up to that ounce, you know that there's something wrong. No, she had to break every one of them and count $890 out by hand.

56:34The Informer: That's what she didn't want to do. But this guy sat there and he walked away with a little smile on his face and winked at mom. Oh, that's beautiful.

56:47Vyzygoth: She paid off in silver then, is that right?

56:50The Informer: No, we didn't have the silver because we didn't want to pay silver at the par value of the Federal Reserve note when it's not at par. So we paid in Susan B. Anthony dollars.

57:02Vyzygoth: Explain to me, why was the Susan Anthony dollar different?

57:09The Informer: Okay, the Susan B. Anthony is a clad coin, it's counterfeit, like all the other coins you deal with. And it has a 20% value, numistic, not numistic in like a coin collecting. Oh, there's a term, it just slipped my mind as fast as it came in and went out. But there's a term for it that they use, that they have too much tied up into it to eliminate that coin.

57:40Vyzygoth: Alright, so that coin was magic a little bit, huh?

57:45The Informer: Well, it's a dollar, and it's a hard coin, and it's U.S. currency, it collapses U.S. currency, and they have to accept it. Well then, but what we're saying is that... I wouldn't take a silver dollar in, because the silver dollar today is worth $13.72. In other words, that's how much the Federal Reserve note has been devalued.

58:17The Informer: And today, you know, four years ago you could buy one ounce of silver or a silver dollar, it's really a dollar of silver, for $4.60 which was still above par which meant that, If it was that car, like when I first started working, I got paid in silver coin. You know, everybody got paid in silver coin. That's all there was, was a clad coin. So I used to collect coins. So I would take my $57 paycheck a week and go down to the bank and cash it all in silver coin. And I had a dollar to spend.

59:01The Informer: So if I wanted to get dimes, I could save 10 dimes. and so many quarters, you know, four quarters, two 50 cent pieces, or a silver dollar. And that's how I started my coin collection. And I would take, if I wanted to get some more coin, I'd take a dollar in, hand them a dollar, and get a dollar's worth of coin, silver. And I'd take a dollar in and get a silver dollar. That's in part, that's how it should be. But then, they started playing with me, I went in one time and the woman said that'd be a dollar and a hand. I said, a dollar and a hand? I said, I'm giving you a dollar. I want another dollar like I always did.

59:45The Informer: She says, well, you've got to give me a dollar and 50 cents more.

59:50Vyzygoth: All right, amen. Hold it right there. We want to break this up into two hours, OK? OK. So we'll come right back to that. Give us about four minutes and we'll continue. All right.