Ep. 351 - The Informer - Part 5
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.
you you you you The End Good evening.
The Informer: When I get off of this mountain You know where I wanna go Go straight down the Mississippi River To the north of Mexico
Vyzygoth: She told me just to come on by, if there's anything she could do. Up on grid 43, she said to me, if I spring a beat, she'd miss me. I don't have to speak, she'd offend me.
The Informer: A drunkard's dream, if I hit an MC-1. My good luck had to start when I took to the racetrack I had owned.
Vyzygoth: I bet on one horse to win and Bessie bet on another to show.
The Informer: The other in my favor, you know I had on five to one. And that man to win came around the track, me and sweet Bessie had won.
Vyzygoth: I'm going along for it for free She sent me here by spring or leaf She missed me, I don't have to speak She'd have been me, a drummer's dream If I ever did see one The peak does fall on my wedding And I gave my little best I had And I swore, and I took another four My bestie kept me beat Okay, we're back for round two.
Vyzygoth: of the Grassy Knoll and with us for both the first hour and that second hour is the Eye Man. We're going to call this parts five and six and we want to remind you you're listening to the Grassy Knoll and we're broadcasting from the the Pines of Braddock and not up on AM 1400. I got a little problem and a lot of people as you well know who've been listening through the stream have had problems and so until that gets Remedy will do it from here and I think things will be just as fine. If you want to get in touch with us, but I mean I got a question for you from somebody out there that I hope we can start off with, but you can also contact us through MSN Messenger, Visigoth or at yahoomessenger at bizbyz1400 or shoot an email at me at bizygoth at hotmail.com.
Vyzygoth: That's B-Y-Z-Y-G-O-T-H. And so can I hit you with a question, Iron Man? Yeah, go ahead. All right. If I can answer it. Oh, no. Well, I mean, hey, that's OK. If you can't, that's fine. But I think it also deals somewhat with the 14th Amendment situation. So let me kind of get through this verbiage. And here we go, let's see. It may be a statement as well, so whatever you got, you got, okay? Okay. All right, fair enough. Let's see.
Vyzygoth: Now that we know that we have been screwed, so to speak, concerning the founding documents, the founding fathers, Rome, and especially the 14th Amendment, should we not have dumped the King? We have been better off now with hindsight, because now with Bush, who was a descendant from both the House of Lancaster and the House of York and is related to Queen Elizabeth I, Queen of England, 1558-1603, is King George. That's a lot to bite off, but do you want to respond to that?
The Informer: Yeah, that's what we found in the archives in Raleigh, where we went, and that'd be another whole... three months of radio show but yeah let me try to answer that without getting too far off okay but when you asked about the 14th amendment before Further on in this book, in my letter, I'll bring in some stuff reverting back to your question where you asked about being charged in the state and then, you know.
Vyzygoth: Yeah, that's on the side of that, right.
The Informer: All right. There is comments in the book on that, exactly. But now this is a case that another researcher just sent me. What I was trying to get, he got for me. And it is the county of Santa Clara versus Southern Pacific Railroad. The people of the state of California, versus the Central Pacific and Southern, same as Southern Pacific. It was May 10th, 1886. And it is, can be cited as Supreme Court 18 Federal Reporters 385. No, that's a footnote, I'm sorry, that's a footnote. This comes out of volume six, October term, 1885.
The Informer: And you can get it from the National Reporter System. St. Paul West Publishing Company. The library numbers, I got reference numbers, is KF101S8115117. That's if you go to the library, law library. Now, this case is quite lengthy and buried back on page 1139, there is a comment in here by the court that will answer some of your 14th Amendment questions as to corporations or people.
The Informer: And coming down, it's the special grounds of defense for each of the defendants who were. And then it goes in and explains what they were. Number two, that the provisions of the Constitution and laws of California in respect to the assessment for taxation of the property of the railroad corporations operating railroads in more than one country are in violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution insofar as they require the assessment of their property at its full money value without making deduction as in the case of railroads operating in one country and of other corporations and of natural persons for the value of the mortgages covering the property assessed.
The Informer: Thus, imposing upon the defendant, as a corporation, unequal burdens, and to that extent denying to it the equal protection of the law. Right there is stating that the 14th Amendment was applied to corporations. 1885. All right.
Vyzygoth: What did that do to burden the citizens?
The Informer: Okay, well, it took the due process, and that's what they're talking about here, and this is where the due process was applied to the people in the states but not the federal government. In other words, you're in a state, you're in Florida, and you do something down there, and you claim the Fifth Amendment or the First Amendment or the Fourth or whatever you want, Only if it meets due process requirements will you get it through the 14th Amendment, which was made for, strictly for the black people, no matter what anybody says.
The Informer: When you do the research, you'll find that the 13th, the 14th, and the 15th was strictly for blacks.
Vyzygoth: All right. Now, please expand on that because that's a pretty interesting statement. Some people say, that the 13th Amendment freed the blacks and the 14th enslaved us all?
The Informer: Well, yeah, the 14th, what it did was it gave the blacks, okay, the blacks were freed, but what do they got? They have nothing. That's right. And that's where the 14th Amendment came in to give them the rights that the, quote, white people had before the 14th Amendment. Because actually before the 14th Amendment, way before the Constitution was formed, blacks could vote, blacks could hold office and had military office, everything, you know. And when the Constitution was drafted, they declared them three-fifths of a person and made them slaves. Even the people that had the money, that had the property, and so on and so forth.
The Informer: But people don't realize that.
Vyzygoth: Well, so in other words, the Fourth Amendment then, again, probably capitalized on bringing the blacks into full citizen status, is that correct?
The Informer: Yeah, because you see, it says all persons, now these were artificial entities, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. All right. So breaking that down, the black people then, they resided within the state. But they were citizens of the United States because they were liberated by the United States. Therefore, the United States had to see that they had due process of law. So they drafted the Fourteenth Amendment and brought all the Bill of Rights in for the Fourteenth Amendment as long as they met the due process provisions. due process does not mean a jury trial or indictment. They are out the window.
The Informer: The Bill of Rights don't apply to jury trials. So you can argue you're blue in the face that you want a jury trial under the Bill of Rights and you ain't going to get it.
Vyzygoth: You know, this reminds me, I think you sent me an email probably a month or so ago that discussed the rather, I mean, I guess precarious verbiage that was in, you know, a certain clause. I mean, you really pulled it apart and I'm trying to figure out what that was. Do you remember?
The Informer: I mean, somebody pulled... Was that section three or four of the Fourteenth Amendment or what?
Vyzygoth: Well, yeah, okay, very good. It did exactly address itself to the Fourteenth Amendment. Okay. And pulled it apart. I'm telling you what, it was a headache to try to figure that thing out. Yeah, that's where diagramming sentences comes in. Well, you're right, you're right. Now, I don't think it was you that did that, but somebody did it, I think, and you concurred. I think it was James Montgomery. James did it, and you found it solid.
The Informer: Yeah. Yep. Now, a lot of people say, oh, well, Section 4, well, Section 3 is even worse. Section 4, the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned. So a citizen can't question the public debt. That's right, in Section 4 of the 14th Amendment.
Vyzygoth: Right.
The Informer: Now, in the third section, the one part down there, no person shall be a Senator, Representative, blah, blah, blah, blah, in support of the Constitution shall have engaged in this insurrection or rebellion against the same or give an aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. Well, you can only vote if you're in rebellion in the United States and they take an oath, the courts take an oath on the Constitution and the 14th Amendment that if they rule in our favor, we are the enemy, they are now given aid or comfort to the enemy if they rule for us and against the government.
The Informer: That's basically what that says right there in Section 3.
Vyzygoth: That's exactly what I had read. We're kind of lost in all that. Can you straighten everything out? in a straight line and tell us what that really means? We're screwed. Well, we kind of know that. But the gymnastics and the manipulation of the syntax is incredible.
The Informer: Oh, yeah. And remember, we're dealing with past masters of the art of law. And they're all lawyers. And in fact, they were all brought in through the crown And that every governor has to be an attorney. And if you go back in the history of your state, look at how many governors were attorney. There was only one governor in North Carolina that was not an attorney. All the rest were attorneys.
Vyzygoth: How come you got lucky, do you know?
The Informer: I don't know what happened. There was only one period of time that North Carolina did have a governor that was not an attorney. I don't think he lasted long. I would think not. I didn't go in to find out who it was, just that I know, you know, in going through attorneys, there was a blank for that year. There was no attorney for the governor.
Vyzygoth: Let me hold you right there. Let's tell everybody, you listen to the informer on the grass, you know, and I think we've not done enough justice to his website. If you go to Let's see, Against the Green, that's what, informerarchives.com, you'll go to the index and you can hit him from there. You can also go to my website and you can click on the upcoming shows, which obviously Iman's in, or you can go to the audio archives of which three of his shows are there and click on any of that to get him there. Anything else though, Iman, about the website and what you put up there?
The Informer: Pardon? Want me to repeat that? Oh, I thought you were talking to the audience.
Vyzygoth: I was, but now I'm addressing you. Is there anything else you want to tell the folks about what they can find there? Also, I guess we shouldn't short shrift James Montgomery either, right?
The Informer: He's right on the next column over, knowledge is freedom. If you read a lot of that, you'll see the questions and answers that he had answered for a lot of people, plus he's got a lot of other stuff in there, the Vatican connection to the United States and everything.
Vyzygoth: Oh boy, I tell you what, yeah, we get most of the emails that are critical when we talk about the precious Vatican. Oh yeah. And you know what, I tell you what, you never read Eric John Phelps' works, right, or Charles Wilcox? No. All right. And they are definitely all over, the Vatican and the Jesuits, for what they have done throughout the centuries, although their footprints have been very well covered up. But you guys hit it from another angle, didn't you?
The Informer: Yeah, now the other man that does very well on this is Emmanuel Josephson. He wrote a book called The Federal Reserve Conspiracy and Rockefeller, Their Gold Corner. And I think it was in 1968. Don't know if you can get this. It was 1968 by Chedney Press and I'm not sure if I have a library number.
Vyzygoth: An ISBN?
The Informer: I don't see a library. Oh yeah, there's a card in the Library of Congress. Card number is 68-29455. and he goes in and explains the whole thing from the Vatican and the king and the Jesuits and what they did and the Jesuits were sent across the world to knock out any semblance of any government that would be a republic.
Vyzygoth: You know what? This is so good that you state this, because obviously you've not read the other books, and I'm a proponent, or an exponent, I guess, of what was written. It changed my thinking. But you guys, yourself and James, have been on, you know, looking for something else, and have been drawn to the same information. So in other words, if, you know, you're not in our camp, so to speak, then that's great. But you found out about this through another avenue, and you found out what we found out too.
Vyzygoth: And I'll tell you this much, I get some emails from Catholics who are all up and down my back, and it's like, well look, why don't you go check out the history of the Vatican, and the Jesuits, which is out there, but I guess especially in the 20th century, and especially after World War II, the footprints of their perfidy and their instigations are gone.
The Informer: Well, I mean, it might be ironic, but I was bought up Catholic. I was an altar boy and all this. And, you know, I fell out when I started realizing it was something that was screwed up with the Church.
Vyzygoth: Yeah.
The Informer: And then when I found all this stuff that was going on and how bad the Vatican really was during the Crusades and everything, I mean, jeez, more people were killed over religious arguments than any of the other world wars that we've had. Exactly.
Vyzygoth: Exactly. Moving right along though, I guess you wanted to come back to something we talked about and that's a bit about double jeopardy and pleading out to the state.
The Informer: What the court, what the book here said, all right, is they're talking about Brock versus North Carolina. It's 1953 now. The state court had declared a mistrial. and ordered a continuance of the case in order to permit the state to deal with some of its own witnesses who had unexpectedly refused to testify on pleas of self-incrimination. Citing the Palko case, the court held that the double jeopardy provision was not incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. And this particular action was not shocking enough to make the trial unfair. Well, gee, tell me what is.
The Informer: In 1967, the court declined to decide whether or not double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment would be extended to the states. Although it had granted certiorari to decide the question on a full hearing of the case, it agreed that the state action did not amount to double jeopardy and dismissed the writ as improvidently granted, C.J. Ose versus Indiana. Since one is not in jeopardy until his trial actually begins, indictment for a crime does not put a person in jeopardy and therefore repeated indictments do not constitute double jeopardy.
The Informer: Well, you know, these are lawyers that run the country through the crown to keep the people under control, and they're the ones that write all these stupid laws, and this makes no sense at all. Moreover, the government can appeal the dismissal of an indictment, and such an appeal gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to pass upon the constitutionally of constitutionality of the criminal legislation, which the lower court holds unconstitutional, cede discussion to the note to Muskrat. It does not constitute double jeopardy to try a person each time he commits the same offense over again.
Vyzygoth: All right, now hold on. Explain that.
The Informer: All right. They explain it. Thus, a conscientious subjector who had served a prison sentence for refusing to register for the draft may be tried and convicted again if he continues in his refusal. The same is true of a person who is punished for contempt for refusing to give testimony. Where, however, a witness is asked to identify a person as a communist and in reply refuses to identify anyone, she is guilty of only one contempt despite a refusal to answer the same question 11 times asked with regard to other persons.
Vyzygoth: Does that mean that she would be guilty 11 times?
The Informer: No, she can't be, she wouldn't be put in jail for deputies and she can't be asked the same question 11 times and be cited for 11 attempts at court.
Vyzygoth: Alright, so why is there a difference between the two incidents?
The Informer: It's because they say, and what they write, and what the Congress, which is at least 75% lawyers, it's how they get around the true law of the lawgiver, which is the Lord, and this is man's law in Mammon, and he said, take your lumps, it's your problem, don't come to me.
Vyzygoth: I'm looking at the conscientious objector, right? Right. Who they use as a first example.
The Informer: Yeah, so if he was tried and convicted and he served, say, a year in jail, and then he goes out and he refuses to register again for the draft. They can hit him again. They can hit him again. And they say it's not double jeopardy, because it's a different offense.
Vyzygoth: Alright, so the time period might be critical here because the person who refuses to identify anybody, if she continues or he, well in this case I guess it's a she, but if the individual continues to not want to identify anybody, they're in the court at the same time and the same time period. Right. And so that isn't seen as another offense.
The Informer: Right. They can only charge her for one time. Let's say a year later she comes down and does it again, they can try her again.
Vyzygoth: Well, I was going to say, yeah, okay, three days past, they bring her back in and answer the same thing. She's back in the cooker again.
The Informer: Right. The court in Morgan v. Devine, 1915, quoted with approval from Bishop on criminal law. The test is whether if what is set out in a second indictment has been proved under the first, there could have been a conviction When there could, the second cannot be maintained. Where there could not, it can be. See, they're all screwed up in their own... Yeah, I mean, that's a horrible sentence. Yeah. Yeah. It is no sentence. Geez. One of the obvious results in living under our federal form of government is that every person is subject to criminal jurisdiction in two separate governments, the state and the national.
The Informer: It is entirely possible therefore for a single act to constitute an offense against the statutes of the United States and at the same time to be punishable under state law. This is true in the case of counterfeiting. the national currency, corrupt practices in the conduct of congressional elections, assaults against federal officers, the larceny of goods moving in interstate commerce, violations of former prohibition amendment. In these cases, it has been long held that a person may be tried and punished in both governments without violating the protection against double jeopardy. That guarantee is violated only by a second trial for the same offense against the same sovereign.
The Informer: not by a trial or the same act when it can constitute a separate and distinct crime against another sovereign. So in other words, you could do the crime in Michigan and Tennessee and, you know, they can bounce like McVeigh, you know, they wanted to, every state wanted a piece of them.
Vyzygoth: I mean, do they do that to find out where they can get the best deal? Sure. Yeah.
The Informer: That's something, huh?
Vyzygoth: Well, you know, okay, this is not conspiratorial. This is the theoretical. I just find it interesting that the state in which he was finally convicted and sentenced was by lethal injection. I don't know what Colorado has. I don't know if it's hanging or not. I guess what I'm driving at is, although, you know, I don't know, I just wonder if He played ball and may not be dead if you know what I'm saying. Right. Is that completely wild to your thinking?
The Informer: No. It's like a lot of lawyers like to shop in different southern states for compensation because they can get more compensation in Alabama and Mississippi than they can in New York City.
Vyzygoth: But that has to be tied into a criminal being involved in those different states, is that correct? Oh yeah, for a criminal, yeah. I mean, you've got to have traffic through all that, yeah. Right. All right. But again, with this double jeopardy as it applies to state and federal though, I'm a little confused here because, I mean, so in other words, if the state can't convict, And it was involved, I guess it must be involved with interstate commerce, which is federal. Would that be right? Yeah. That the feds can jump in and say, OK, the state dropped the ball, we'll take it and we'll convict? Uh-huh. They can?
The Informer: Yeah.
Vyzygoth: All right. Yeah. Have we seen any instances?
The Informer: Now, there's one here that says, under the Lanza rule, there was someone that violated the Volstead Act. The district judge dismissed the indictment on the grounds of double jeopardy and the government appealed. The Lanza Rule, though sharply criticized, still stands. A bait versus the United States in 1959 helped that a man convicted of a crime in Illinois could later be trying for the same act, dynamiting telephone communications under federal law, because he would be federal communications. So Illinois could come after him and so could the United States. Lanza was specifically reaffirmed by a six to three decision.
The Informer: On the same day, the court held five to four that one acquitted in a federal court of robbing a federally insured bank could later be tried and convicted in the same state court for the same robbery. Butkus versus Illinois, 1959. But wait a minute. Now the court could be a state court or it could be a federal court, I mean a bank, I'm sorry. Because even though it's federally insured, the state bank, when we had lost a particular check that was supposed to go to a undertaker for my father, the undertaker lost the check and it was a certified check from the bank.
The Informer: And I had called up and I went through all kinds of stuff and I finally ended up going to the controller of the bank in New York City and I was told that At first I thought it was federal, and it wasn't. It was state. So therefore the state bank, they had nothing to do with it, but yet it was federally insured and everything, and I couldn't get them to issue another check to the undertaker that lost it based on the fact that it was never cashed. And then they told me, well, is it federal or state? Well, because it was a state bank, I'm sorry, it was a state bank.
The Informer: I had to go to the controller in New York City and only after talking to him for about five minutes, this is a six-month deal now. And then when I finally hit the right person in New York in five minutes, after explaining everything to him, issued a check. He wrote to the bank. I got a copy of the letter. He told it in no uncertain terms that they had to issue a check to the undertaker. And they did. It took me six months to find who was responsible for this fiasco. And it was the controller of the banks in New York City.
Vyzygoth: What a surprise, huh?
The Informer: Well, New York City is like that little thing called London, the city of London, which has nothing to do with England at all. It's all by the crown. It's all owned by the crown. It's like that little piece of Wall Street down there.
Vyzygoth: What about that little piece of Wall Street?
The Informer: Down at 55 Water Street. It generally runs everything that goes on in this country. Usually everything has to go through it. We found some interesting stuff similar to what that is in the archives in North Carolina. And when I'm saying archives, I mean the state archives where the state personnel has all the records, not a law library or any other kind of county library or anything like that. But there's two states.
The Informer: If people don't realize that, there is a thing on there on the informer site. It is, this is not conjecture, this is not myth, this is not patriot myth. If they click on that, they'll find out how everything has come circuitous through the crown. up to present day and how everything is operating and that we have two different governments within the same state. You have two governments and we're dealing in a monarchy. We don't have a democracy. We really have the monarchy.
Vyzygoth: When you say two different governments, to what are you referring?
The Informer: In the state, if you get the de facto is called this state and everything in the original state is called the state. the and this, and we found that there was so many of it that was in there that the one part, it was in the Halifax Resolves. And I'm going to read you one little part. And it says, the Halifax Resolves came along on April 12, 1776 and was done by a select committee after the fourth provisional Congress, this is North Carolina, which pulled them in under the Continental Congress, so on and so forth.
The Informer: We said how do we go forward into a constitutional law and try to find something that will absolutely prove our thesis and our hypothesis that there might be more than one government. Now I'm reading right off of what Mr. P said. So we started reading and he's talking about me and a fellow called Fraud Buster and another fellow that went actually down into the archives and sat there for three days pulling all this stuff and getting it.
Vyzygoth: What archives is this in North Carolina?
The Informer: So we started reading and the first thing we find, by the way, they were everywhere. This is the Constitution of North Carolina 1776 and he passed it around and all the people read it. We got to look at this and here is the hard part and you're going to have to learn to read this the way I have had to learn to read it. The constitutional form of government agreed to and resolved by the representative of the Freeman of the state of North Carolina and they put small s, small state.
The Informer: of North Carolina, elected and chosen for that particular purpose in Congress assembled in Halifax 18 December 1776, whereas the legions, protection in their natural reciprocal, whereas, whereas, he's saying whereas, whereas, and we want to do this Constitution. So they say for the time being they're going to act and they're going to put this Constitution together for North Carolina. So we start saying, which North Carolina? How do you read this? Well, Declaration of Rights that all political power is vested in and derived from the people. Okay. So all quit writing. He's telling the whole people are writing down there where we were talking to them and gather closer.
The Informer: The Declaration of Rights made by the Freeman of the state of North Carolina. See that little word right there? The state of North Carolina. Number two, the people of this state. Wait a minute. What happened to these two? What happened to the Freeman of the State of North Carolina? Now they're calling the people of this state, meaning that these guys sat down and put this constitution together under their private state. And then one person said, their private second state? Right. We have a sole and exclusive rights of regulating them, internal government and police thereof. That's a private club. And that no man or said men are titled to several alignments, not separate, as they want them confined within their own alignment and that the legislature, executive and judicial power of the government ought to be separate and distinct and so on and so forth.
The Informer: And you go down and you start reading at the bottom of what we were reading at, you pull it together and it comes in and it says, so the government of that state and the government created by the constitution of this state, The and this. Look it up in the dictionary. You'll see how far apart those words are.
Vyzygoth: Do pronouns the and this?
The Informer: Yes, the and this.
Vyzygoth: And where would one look for this? In the old Webster 1828?
The Informer: Really, any dictionary that's a good dictionary. Webster's, I got the 1828. That's where I like to go. And that's the least bastardized dictionary that you'll find.
Vyzygoth: Well, I'll tell you, that's on three sites on the web. That's really neat to have.
The Informer: Yeah.
Vyzygoth: But, I mean, can you give us a thumbnail as to what the difference is between the and this?
The Informer: The is a modifier. I wrote about it. I can't remember. But the is a modifier. This is general. Now, I don't know if in Black's law, if they have the legal definition of the and this, but hold on a second, ST, I'll look it up and see if... I'm pulling mine out. Yeah, pull yours out and take a look at it, because there is a difference.
The Informer: An article which particularizes the subject spoken, grammatical niceties should not be resorted to without necessary, but it would be extending their liberty, liability, you know, they broke the word up, to an unwarrantable length that can found the articles a and the. The most unfettered person is understand a is indefinite, but the refers to a certain object. Alright, where are you reading that from? Phase 11, 1324, Black's 5th.
Vyzygoth: Alright, I got the Black 6th edition.
The Informer: Uh huh.
Vyzygoth: Remember that?
The Informer: No, I don't have the sixth. I stopped after the fifth because they got so screwed up and messing up everything that I didn't bother getting it.
Vyzygoth: Well, it says an article which particularizes the subject spoken of.
The Informer: Right. It is very particular. That's why term and word, term is very particular and cannot be deviated from, but a word can be deviated from and added to and used like including.
Vyzygoth: All right, I'm going to just hit you with this. It said, when this and that refer to different things before expressed, this refers to the thing last mentioned. Right. And that to the thing first mentioned. This is a demonstrative adjective used to point out with particularity a person or thing present in place or in thought. That's pretty confusing. Yeah. Jeez.
The Informer: So in the The 1976 Constitution in North Carolina is even more evident when you read it. It says, We the people of the state of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, do for the more certain security thereof, for better government of this state, order and establish the Constitution for the general principles of liberty and so forth, the relations of this state, not the state, to the union government of the United States and to the people of this state, now it is called this state. And it's all, this is all the way down when you go and read it.
The Informer: Now what I did was I wrote a letter to the Attorney General of North Carolina on another matter. And I bought this, no I didn't really bring it up, I let him nailed his own height to the wall.
Vyzygoth: Okay.
The Informer: And I still have a copy of that letter. But we were talking, he says, you know, about being a citizen of the state and my convictions are, you know, really strong and stuff. And it comes on the letterhead, and on the letterhead is all capitalized, the state of North Carolina. In the letter, in talking about natural liberties, he used North Carolina and didn't put state in front of it and didn't use the word this, wherein all the others he did. And I came back and I nailed on that on a letter and he never responded to that second letter.
Vyzygoth: All right. So, so break that down again about the, um, the difference between the, um, the semantics there.
The Informer: Oh, this state and the state.
Vyzygoth: Well, uh, or the lack of using any article though, wasn't an I-man in front of North Carolina.
The Informer: It was what?
Vyzygoth: Didn't he not use an article at all before North Carolina?
The Informer: No. No.
Vyzygoth: So what status does that create then?
The Informer: Because you see there's no boundaries in North Carolina. The only boundary on North Carolina is listed as the Atlantic Ocean. There's no boundaries between Virginia and South Carolina and Tennessee. And if we went and we found, because of this we went and we dug up in the archives the old original maps, and the old original maps, North Carolina was Tennessee, all the way over to the Mississippi, and South Carolina went all the way over to the Mississippi, and Virginia went all the way over to the Mississippi. And we got the archive actual maps, and they reduced them down, because they were huge, and they reduced them down for us, and we got them certified.
The Informer: And then when you look in the North Carolina Constitution, And it is really funny in a way that when we approached the lawyers down there in Raleigh, they didn't know what to say. They actually had no idea why it was written that way. And I'm trying to find it right now. The Constitution of North Carolina It says basically they will be as they were. That's the definition of the boundaries of North Carolina.
Vyzygoth: And where would mean they go out to the Mississippi?
The Informer: Yeah.
Vyzygoth: And what year was that map created? Do you remember offhand? Oh, 1700 and something. So they're holding to this creation of a state And it's parameters that was back in the 18th century?
The Informer: Yeah, uh-huh. They do have it. I'm trying to see where, if it's what article. Like you say, I have it on my... I got so much stuff that I, you know... That's not a problem.
Vyzygoth: But I'm just wondering, if somebody screws up in Tennessee, And that obviously is in the direct line of what North Carolina was given as its purview. Right. So how would that be treated today? Would somebody be necessarily answerable to North Carolina?
The Informer: I have no idea because no one's done it. No one has ever put this into into practice, into any court session or anything within that.
Vyzygoth: But the language as it was, as they were, that refers back to this 18th century?
The Informer: Yeah, the 18th century maps that we got, because when we bought them up and we asked for the present day maps, well, naturally it shows you the states like you see on any map. in boundaries. But it doesn't list the boundaries, the meets and bounds, like it's supposed to.
Vyzygoth: OK.
The Informer: They talk about governments and everything and education. Yeah, you know, I just don't, I don't see it in... Well, that's all right. But yeah, I mean, even Fraudbuster went down and talked to the attorney down in the governor's office. And he threw the Constitution down. He says, can you define what this is for me? And he looked at it and he started laughing. He says, I never saw this. That means that this idiot in the governor's office, DHE, never picked up the Constitution and looked at it.
Vyzygoth: Well, what does that say about the Constitution? It's worthless. And what exactly is running them then?
The Informer: They're running off of the private corporation, willy-nilly, whatever the law says, that's what it is.
Vyzygoth: And yet we do have, as far as I can understand, you're telling me that for the most part, even with the state government, you're running with two different state governments. Sure, yes. And they show you one and they got another. Uh-huh. What's another example, if you could think of one, where one runs into that kind of in the matrix, outside the matrix?
The Informer: Generally everywhere. There was an email that was on today and I responded to the guy, darn, and he's talking about the Constitution.
Vyzygoth: Did you send that to me today?
The Informer: I think it was down in Texas. Oh the key words, now the guy got a letter and it was from the Department of Texas Public Safety and it was April 21st and the person wrote to him about the driver's license thing and he says this is from the manager of the DMV and it says this is the response to your correspondence date of March 27, 2006 concerning the issuance of your Texas driver's license. Please accept my sincere apology for the inconvenience you have experienced in obtaining your Texas driver's license. It is not the intent of the Department of Public Safety to make this process a difficult one.
The Informer: The department recognizes the essential need, now listen to that carefully now, the essential need of the citizens of this state to obtain a driver license and seeks to be efficient on all customer-based services. All right. Well, then she goes in and says, please accept my apology for any inconvenience and all this and da-da-da-da. And you applied for your Texas driver's license. We fail to recognize that your signature does not meet our standards. We cannot accept a signature with the additional statement, all rights reserved, printed under your signature.
The Informer: Therefore, we need to recapture another signature for your driver's license. We would like to schedule an appointment for you at the driver's license office of your choice." So I wrote back to the guy and I says, okay, I find the key words used to deny you the reservation. Now this is hard to swallow but it's a fact. Here are the words to key in on from your letter. Quote, the department recognized the essential need of the citizens of this state to obtain blah, blah, blah, blah. This state is a corporate private state and is not the original state. The next is citizen of.
The Informer: Since a citizen belongs to the private corporate entity of this state, they can deny the rights reservation and demand just your signature. I once had a judge tell me and others that he could not give us what we wanted with reservations attached. He said it's impossible to give rights already granted. Of course, granted is a citizen's permission to do what the state allows. It's not an inherent right. So they're very clever in their terms used. It goes right over people's heads as to words and what they mean to them in their realm. Well, you can understand what else it isn't. It's what they say it is.
Vyzygoth: But I mean, you can understand why people would obviously be hoodwinked by this.
The Informer: Yeah. Now there's a case that I got and I told them, and I can't recall it and I have it buried away in tons of paper from 1933 that says in the caption and it's a federal case, you can have your cake and eat it too with reference to the UCC 1207 and it was a federal case. Now to understand, I've posted this about 50 times and it was that, Under the 1933 War Powers Act, every state had to comport with the Federal Act and recognize every state that would be uniform throughout the country. And that was at the ATG Press.
The Informer: It is www.informerarchives.com forward slash inform forward slash govo46. That's 046, I don't know. .htm. And they click on that and they'll go right in to see what the term is of this state. And this is what we found in the archives in Raleigh.
Vyzygoth: Well, I mean, again, with these lawyers, are they aware of the duality of the state?
The Informer: No, a lot of them are just dumb as a bump on a log, but once you get above, you know, you get into the Attorney General's office, they know, all the courts know, all the law professors know, because they teach this crap. And they, the lower echelon are just dumb, you know, they just like clerks. They told what to do. When to do it, told to shut up by the judge because he rules them in court. And he has to believe, he has to follow what the judge says, and he can't do it on his own. And if he does, he's disbarred.
Vyzygoth: Well, you know, what chance does anybody really have in court?
The Informer: None, not really. I mean, a lot of people say I'm a defeatist. No, I'm talking reality. Oh, okay. I've been in the courts since 1980, well actually 1976 when I won my first traffic case, but I've lost a lot and I've won a few. And the big cases, you will never win on the big cases like Samankin and Schiff and all them. I mean, you know, they ain't going to admit we're right. and kill the goose that lays the golden egg for him.
The Informer: So anything of major importance, property taxes, driver's licenses, income tax, and a few other, you know, little things, the rest is mundane, you could probably win on them. on a matter of the law and stuff like that. But the big ones, no. You'll, once in your court, see they have administrative law that runs the country and administrative law actually are courts of the first instance and once you go in and they have made a determination to the agency and you can pull that by an administrative law in an amjur and pull that out, amjur one.
The Informer: And you can read the whole story details on administrative law and see how the country has been run since 1933 when Roosevelt took over and changed the whole structure of the government. And that's why the war powers. And this is where that site I just gave you on the myth and not patriot myth and not mythology, you know, it's no BS. It's the real meal deal, so-called, as a friend of mine says, on the internet, on the ATG press site.
The Informer: I mean, the people, they can see it in black and white, and even the people that we showed to were so shocked that had we not had the material there, the actual archive documents, they wouldn't have believed this. And these are top researchers.
Vyzygoth: You know, did something take place in the early 30s?
The Informer: Yeah. Under Roosevelt's... 1933 to 1935 is when they really did everything and screwed the American people and made the two governments.
Vyzygoth: And... The two governments would be what?
The Informer: The state and this state. So anything with this state is the de facto corporation, and it's their own private little club that they set up based on what happened in, well, on March 9th. What they did, believe it or not, in North Carolina, an act to abolish the Corporation Commission and create the Office of Utilities Commissioner, that there is hereby created the Office of Utility Commissioner who shall have general power and control of the public utility and the public service corporations of The state. They put it in there. The state.
The Informer: And such supervision as necessary of laws affecting companies, corporations, partnerships, and individuals. Now, right here is the individual that you'll find in tax law. The individual is a person. They're the same as corporations. All right? Now, what they did, is they put the utility commissioner on top of all the powers, duties and functions and responsibilities of any statute or law of the state. Now they say of this state. What happened to the state? Here to for conferred upon or vested or exercised by the corporate commissioner or any member thereof are hereby vested in the utilities commissioner.
The Informer: Guess what happened? The utilities commissioner is the governor of this state. And Governor Easley is the governor of the state. So what happened because of the bankruptcy, they rolled over all the corporations, eliminated them, gave them new charters and put them under this state and took them out of the state.
Vyzygoth: Well, I'll tell you what. Am I giving you a headache? Uh, yeah, I had that like a long time ago, but I tell you what, it's worth it to get through this kind of thing. Cause everybody knows, everybody knows that we're being obfuscated out of our minds.
The Informer: Oh yeah. I mean, you talk to people that can't see this here directly and you know, you're a kook, you're a nut, you're a nutcase. Uh, uh, I've been called all kinds of names. It just rolls on my back now. It used to bother me before I said, how can people be so stupid? You know, well I know why. But anyway, if they were to go and pull this up and let them read it, well we do have the document, I do have some documents here with me. We all put them away and some of us kept what we kept and we made a big copy of everything and it took us like two days to make copies of everything that we got out with the seals on it so they're actually documented seals.
The Informer: Of course, one of the guys is put in jail. He's been in jail now for five years. I think he'll get out in 2013. But because the Supreme Court just made some drastic decisions concerning the sentencing guidelines, this guy might get out in 18 months. But that's one of the reasons why he was put in there.
Vyzygoth: Right. Exactly.
The Informer: So what they did, I mean, there is so much in here. that the state treasurer shall be ex officio director of local government. All local governments are simple illusions and fictions. It says an act to transfer the state highway patrol from the highway department to the department of revenue. Now how about that? All the state police and the state highway patrol in North Carolina are under the department of revenue. Why do you think they issued so many tickets?
Vyzygoth: Well, I tell you what, we're out of time. I'm going to leave it there. I hope you'll come back. Oh, yeah. I know. And thank you very much. You've given me enough that I'll be up a couple of nights. OK. You take care, brother, and we'll talk again. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, good night. Good night.