Vyzygoth Interviews the Informer and James Montgomery

0:00All right, welcome everybody. Hoping that I think that you'll probably be very familiar with these two gentlemen. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that's the case. But they were very pivotal in taking the scales off my eyes and showing me exactly what we're involved with. And they're going to come out for two hours. The eye man you might have heard before, James Montgomery, you probably haven't. And so I just want to welcome you, Iman, and also you, James, to the show. Thanks for doing this. Yeah, same here. All right. Now, the thing is, we're going to take calls for people to ask questions.

0:44That call-in number is 618-912-4681. You can also go to visitgothraud.com. The number's posted there. And my email is posted there. And you can use that to submit questions as well. But whoever calls, we're going to let them go first. They're paying their dime. We don't want them waiting on hold forever. So I would ask people also, if you're going to ask questions, be as succinct as possible. If we only can allow you to have one question, just get back online if you want to, because if there are a number of people backed up behind you, again, we want to move them and accommodate them as best as we can. So let's see now.

1:28Jim in Illinois, you'll let me know if we have any callers. But first of all, guys, do you want to make any opening statements? Otherwise, I've got kind of a generic question or two to get us going. Yeah, go ahead. We don't have any opening statements, really. I don't, anyway. Well, I might get a little basic and elemental here, but I don't know that's such a bad idea. I mean, the big aha for me was to realize that the story of our founding fathers was pretty much a fairy tale. And along with that goes the constitution. So just as a basic statement, let's start off with this. The constitution, is it for we, the little people or was it, or was it for the framers? And I will take it from there.

2:12It was really for the framers. It wasn't for the little people. We had nothing to do with it. In fact, none of the original constitutions of the 13 original States was ever submitted to the people to be ratified. and I have the original New Jersey document and I researched through the other documents when David Dodge was doing work and I had so much of it that he didn't have that I had to send him a lot of material and right in the original Constitution of New Jersey on the very first page at the very bottom it says this document was not submitted to the people for ratification.

2:55So that meant they were all corporations under the Virginia Land Company, which extended from Maine to Georgia. It didn't like people think when you say Virginia Land Company, they think of the state of Virginia right now as it existed. But back in those days, it went from Maine to Georgia. And I was called the Virginia Land Company, um, which Rosa, which, uh, Roosevelt, which, uh, Washington was a chief, um, surveyor for that land and he kept a lot of the land for the people and his friends in Europe that came over here and he kept that land and sold it to them.

3:40So most of the founding fathers were, well as James could say, Washington didn't even want to get out of the system. and he wanted to remain a loyal subject of the King. He stated that if he should ever be seen doing anything for separation from England, that he would be marked up as everything evil. He would never do that. Of course, that was just like three years before the 1776 Declaration, so things changed quick.

4:22You know, the Constitution, all that was was a way for the aristocracy to incorporate and have a means to manage their affairs and have governmental protection. Just like the crown was where everything was centered for the king, so the king could not be sued. It was the same thing, basically, as protection for the aristocracy that had formed in this country. All right, we're picking up static on one of your phones, I think. That ain't better. That's good, yeah, thanks a lot. I don't know if you were finished with your statement, James, if you are, I'll ask another, but continue if you need to. No, that was good, go ahead.

5:05All right, well now, then what is the purpose of writing the Constitution? What did it achieve and for whom did it achieve it? Well, what it did was you got to remember All of the Virginia Land Company was owned by the Brown Banks and the King was the front man because of the treaty that he made with the Pope in April 21st of 1214 when it was actually signed. And so it was, as James said, a corporation because When I was doing some work, not too well for a while ago, and there's a case called res res public versus swears.

6:04And it's one Dallas, uh, 1830. It was a 1779 Supreme court decision. And in the five pages, uh, of that. decision in the very beginning, it says that the United States from its inception was a corporation. So that's why the corporation, everybody thinks it's a British corporation because everything in the Virginia Land Company was British, but going back to the 1214 is when the Pope turned everything, the entire British Empire and all the subjects over to the Pope, the Vatican.

6:59And so I have the book, Elements of the Ecclesiastical Law, and if anybody can get that book, there's three volumes. It's page 52, 53, 54, and 254 and 255 in the beginning. And it comes right out and it says that the Pope rules this entire country. And while I'm trying to find that page, in the book.

7:46The Pope's involvement all began back in 1213, the charter of 1213. Anyone out there is familiar with that. This information is not taught in schools, but it does exist. It's nothing that was created by us. This is where King John had been admonished by the Pope for his actions involving his clergy that the Pope excommunicated King John in order to receive the blessing again from the Pope, because his people were open arms, because you have to understand the power that the Catholic Church had over not only kings, but the people of the nation in regards to their relationship with God Almighty.

8:40When all that took place, In order to get into good graces of the pope again, the king had to cede over everything that he held title to him. You've got to keep in mind, he held everything in a loyal, absolute ownership. And he ceded those properties and people, everything that he owned, over to the pope. And then that land and the holdings of the king were ceded back to him as a lesser title. to oversee for the Pope. And this occurred in 1203, did you say? It's 1213.

9:12It took place, and I actually have letters in my book that were communications between King John and the Pope in regards to setting up this arrangement where this was to be done. And so two years later, it's when you had the Magna Carta. always heard for years and years of the Patriots and this nation give lip service to the Magna Carta when they don't realize the whole story.

9:45As to what took place just a few months after the Magna Carta had been written and the kings swore an oath to the barons and signed a document that in August 24th of that same year the Pope ruled that the Magna Carta was no envoy. And, of course, you'd have to ask yourself why in the world would he have the authority or even the semblance to make such a declaration. And the reason is because he was a silent third party because of what took place in 1213, and most people are not aware of that.

10:28And the Magna Carta was, again, brought forth in 1225 that had a number of its paragraphs had been removed by the pope and with the king at that time. And they went across again the pope's approval or disapproval. And because of the taxation issues, it wasn't accepted by the parliament at that time. And in 1297, you see that Magna Carta brought it up yet again in its modified form, not as the same document that it was in 1215.

11:14And again, you see, I believe it was 1305, the Pope at that time ruled that document, Nolan Lloyd, and said King Edward at that time was not to be held liable for anything that he did for a son. James, let me ask you, was the Magna Carta ever a legitimate document and legitimate in the sense that what it dictated ever came true or was it right from the get-go, you know, a failed document? It was failed in the sense for two reasons. Number one, by the way it was done. This is basic law.

11:58You can't be compelled by force and the rest. to sign any sort of a document. Now, in the minds of the bairns, I'm sure it was legitimate. The king did capitulate and sign that document rather than have his head cut off. But as a matter of, you know, the rule of law or contracts, that was not a valid document. And the pope wrote it as such in, again, August 24th of 1215. Yeah, because Why the Pope did that is I'm reading now on page 52 of the National Canon Law of the United States.

12:43Can the sovereign pontiff annul all national canon law? The answer is we reply in the affirmative. For national canon law, whether originating in customs, statutes, privileges, or concordance, depends upon the express or tacit sanction of the Pope. And then going over to article two, it says the American canon law of the national canon law of the United States. And they asked what is meant by the American canon law.

13:21And they go into it and they say, we say our sanction were tolerated by the Roman Pontiff for as was seen No national law can become legitimate and accept by the least of the facet or legal consent of the pope. Hence, the just national or the exceptional ecclesiastical laws prevalent to the United States may be abolished at any time by the sovereign pontiff.

14:00That is because of the tree that was actually signed and sealed April 21st on 1214. And this is what the Patriots and most attorneys have no concept. So in a way, is it true that the Magna Carta, like the Constitution, really weren't worth the paper they were written on to a certain extent? Exactly, exactly. Because when they held the sword to the King John's throat, that was the duress that James was talking about in August when the papal bull came out denouncing the Magna Carta.

14:47The book that most people might be able to buy today that does have that specifically printed in the book is the Federal Reserve Conspiracy and Rockefeller, their gold cornered by Emmanuel M. Josephson. And it was in 1968 when it was printed. Would you just also give me the title of the full title of the book you had just mentioned about ecclesiastical law? Okay, it is Elements of Ecclesiastical Law by S. B. Smith, volume one.

15:35There's three volumes. And I'll read the cover page. The latest decisions of the sacred congregations of cardinals adapted especially to the discipline of the church in the United States. In other words, the United States is a church. And this is the ninth edition, and it's printed by the Bingenier brothers in New York, Cincinnati, and Chicago. And it was the printing for the Holy See, 1893.

16:15You know, that's interesting, by the way, too, because, as I think I might have told you, we got a Some images were reproduced from a newspaper at that time, probably around 1892, called The Patriotic American. It carried a papal bull from Leo. He did come over here and he chewed out the United States for not following his dictates. I do have a copy of that paper and I tried to scan it and put it on my computer. But you know, you can't scan a whole newspaper. No, it's true. In fact, I had to transpose the papal bull just so I could pass it around.

16:58But in that, he says, you know, I'm the vicar of Christ and it all belongs to me. Right. And then he also warned heretics, which translated means anybody who wasn't Romanist, that this would be a good time for you to come into the fold or risk whatever happens to you for being heretical. Rob, very, very not spiritual type words, I'd say. No, no. And you know, the funny part, not really funny, but the part about it that people don't realize is the pope is a fraud. He is not the vicar of Christ. Because back in 79 AD, St. Linus was the first pope that self appointed himself after Peter as the vicar of Christ and it's been carried through so that they have so much power today that people still believe that there is a vicar of Christ and it is not.

18:02So that alone would destroy once it is put in people's mind that there is no Pontiff, there is no Pope who is a vicar of Christ. Right now, to sort things out, I did get a question with regard to the Magna Carta from a listener over in the UK. You kind of already addressed that without knowing it, so we'll let that one go. I do want to return to the illegitimacy of the Constitution as well. But really, when it comes down to it, even as far back as, I guess, what we're talking about is the 13th century, Yes. The Vatican had extended its strength.

18:45Now here's one question I want to ask you, at how best you understand this. It seemed to me, although the Vatican was strong at times, and at other times kind of on the run, and we had the dual papacy there for a while, only in France, but it would seem to me that right around the 1820s, when the Treaty of Orona came out, it was on the back of the fact that the Jesuits had already wrested control from whatever power sources were there, perhaps the Pope, and that from that point on, the Jesuits pretty much ran the show from behind the Vatican doors. Right. That was 1541 when De Loyola became the first black pope because he was actually the police of the Vatican.

19:28Yeah, the enforcement arm of the Vatican. Now, so I'm assuming, and maybe I'm wrong, but around the Treaty of Verona, and again, I think it was 1822, it seems from that point on, though that there was some infighting going on between the Jesuits and others, that from that period on, it was solidified, it was done, and they only grew stronger. Right. If they continued on, too, just to interject, what was done during that treaty, I mean, it was just huge, the involvement of the Jesuits and other states, not only Papal States, but it was their aim to destroy any democracy.

20:09They considered that an enemy of the Pope, and that was what they set out to do. You can see this all the way up into the Civil War, when Lincoln was assassinated. Most people are taught that John Wilkes Booth and that's all you ever hear. You never hear of the main conspirators. You had John Surratt and Mary Surratt. Mary Surratt, she was one of the ones that was hung on the gallows. John Surratt, after they had succeeded in killing Lincoln, he escaped up through Canada. The next time that he was found, he was at the Vatican and provided protection by the Pope. The United States finally worked out a deal with the Pope.

20:54to bring him back for trial. Of course, it was just a show trial. When he came back, the audience was full of Jesuits and intimidated juries. And he lived the remainder of his life in New York and died in the 1900s. Just to fill in, yes, I agree with you completely. He went over and was in the Vatican guard of all things. Yeah. And it's true. And in fact, Wilcox in his book, Transformation of the Republic, had an image of a newspaper where it's a United States daily that said, If Sarat's not returned, the United States is breaking off diplomatic relations with the Vatican. I understand that diplomatic because they are a nation state as well. Then what happened was they sent Sarat off and they gave him one more chance.

21:39I don't know if you've heard about this, but he escapes in Alexandria and is caught and then brought back. I was surprised. And what also was interesting is that his, I guess, handler, was the priest Wiggett out of Baltimore. And of course they had the trial in Georgetown, which is a hotbed of Jesuitical behavior. And it ended in a hung trial, a hung jury. So he never got convicted. But what's really interesting also is he wrote his memoirs and the story goes that Seurat was so depressed that nobody wanted to publish them that he burnt them. Personally, I'm not believing that. Okay.

22:23Yes, what the listeners need to remember is, it's an old adage that the victor always is the one that writes history. And that's why a lot of these documents that you do not see, you've never heard of, you weren't taught this in school, even up through college. Many times these historical facts are not taught. And that is why, because the victor, the pope, and the King have chosen to stay behind the scenes and keep these facts sealed. Let me inject something here.

23:06How this is proven and I went online and I found it. I have the Encyclopedia of American History and it was a school book published by Harper and Row and it was in the schools in 1955. I remember because I looked at the book at that time when I was in school and high school and it's old history. You know how young kids are. Well, what's the history got to do? Well, anyway, I found out that Rupert Murdoch, who was a Jesuit, was sent here to buy out Harper and Rowe so they could destroy this history book because the history book is diametrically opposite of what you have today in America's history books.

24:03He bought out Harper and Rowe. They formed another company and they then methodically went to all the bookstores and all the schools and the libraries and took out these books so no one would know the real truth of history. That's what I have and when I was doing some research in Chapel Hill in about 1992 I went to the library and I was doing the work for David Dodge and David Dodge asked me to do certain work on the original 13th Amendment and I said, yeah, okay, I got some of it but I don't have others and I went to North Carolina into their UNC Chapel Hill University Library And I found from 19 oh something or 18 oh something when to 1860 all of the books had in it the original 13th Amendment.

25:21Then from 1940 or 1840 until 1868 There was no mention whatsoever in any other books of the original 13th Amendment. But then the 13th Amendment, as it is today, appeared in the 1870 book, law book.

25:59So I went back to the library with a bunch of people to show them what I found. Well, guess what? They took all of those books from 1800 and I think to until 1868 and replace them with brand new books that showed the 1870 13th Amendment as if it never existed. The original one never existed. You know, what's interesting too is that after the 13th got quashed, And when did that first appear?

26:44Was it somewhere around 1810 or something? Yeah, around 1812, 1810, because remember they tried to burn Washington, the library and everything in there? Yes, well about the war of 1812. Yep. In fact, I'd like to get to that later on. But what I'm saying is interesting is that there was no attempt at another amendment until we get after the Civil War. Right. I just find it interesting that there was such an inactivity. Uh, and as you said also that at the original 13th now, is it true that the original 13th had to do with the, um, nobility, nobility, right?

27:27I do have a copy that I scanned of that book of the original 13th. That's the only reason why I got it. And so that amendment continued to be printed by states after the Civil War. I think the last I had was around 1872 in Colorado. Now, that was a warning or a prescription that no one bearing a title, which would be an Esquire, Especker, or just a plain, a knighthood, right, sir? Right. Now, here's why. Let's go back to 1355.

28:10See, this is why patriots don't understand this because they don't go back far enough. They think, ah, let's go back 100 years. That's nothing. Well, in 1355, the Vatican took all the Knights Templars and made them attorneys. Now, here is what it is. Do you know the definition of a bar? And I do have it from Charles Warren's book on the history of the American bar.

28:44The bar, the name bar, the word bar, B-A-R, means not like a lot of patriots say British accredited agency, whatever. In Charles Warren's book, he says a bar is one attorney, one attorney. That's it. They call them bars. So naturally, if you have a bar association, that's an attorney association, right? People cannot understand this, and that's why they take an oath to support the pope in whatever they do.

29:25Now, today's people, new attorneys, have no clue that they have a silent oath that they take to protect the pope's corporation. Um, did you want to say something, James? I'm sorry. Well, that's why you are normally, uh, they do not want unlicensed individuals, you know, coming before the court because you can damage the decorum, so to speak, of the court. You're not going to abide by the same rules, uh, that the licensed attorney is sworn oath to follow.

30:08And runs the risk of being disbarred if he goes against those rules. Now, let me ask you this. Not only the constitution, but prior to that, the whole code of American civil law, are they not both predicated on one, the English code of law? And secondly, and we talked about this years ago, Eyemann, Should people take a look at the book by Stevens, Sources of the Constitution? Yeah, and I can also go and get the book, The Myth and the Reality, that I published. That's the last one.

30:53And it goes through everything that the Pope installs every CEO of this corporation called the United States. He installed Washington, Madison, and Obama, and everybody in between. The vote canage for nothing. Neither is the Electoral College putting them into place. But it stands to reason, if you have a corporation Can you own it?

31:31You're going to make sure that the CEO follows your rules of what you want, what he wants for his corporation, right? Okay. Now, um, in the, um, the myth and the reality book, I go into everything from the first time the Congress convened and even Congress was not filing and fitting the constitutional parameters because they just didn't, like on the constitutional requirements, right?

32:22The constitutional requirement is Chapter two, it's the Constitution, no person except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the what? Adoption of this Constitution. They see they adopted it and people don't understand what the word adopt means. Shall be eligible for office Neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not attain the age of 35 and then 14 years a resident within the United States. That's within the corporation, not the country.

33:03Cause the United States is not a country and the constitution for the requirements of Congress is seven years a citizen of the United States who shall not when elected. being an inhabitant of that state in which he held be chosen. Now that sounds very funny. And it is, but the historical fact that the United States never existed before the year 1783. And the reason you can find this right on the government site, it's cia-dot-gov website. It states, when the officially United States was officially recognized, it was officially recognized the day after 1783 was signed.

33:54Not 1787, not 1776, but 1783. Is that the day after the Treaty of Paris? That day after the Treaty of Paris, because When you read the Treaty of Paris where the front man for the crown, the king, actually dictated the terms of peace. The people went there to sign it from America were who? Attorneys. Benjamin Franklin. Franklin, yes. Jay and all of them.

34:33So if you have an attorney owned by the Pope for one side and an attorney for the other side, who's running the show? They're not going to do anything that's going to endanger the title of nobility. That's right. And yet, well, attorneys bear a title, don't they? Yes, that's right. Is there any coincidence, and if there is, did it begin in Britain, that the courtroom and the church interior are much the same in their layout. Do you know where I'm going with this?

35:16All right. Looks like the church, don't it? Well, yeah, you get the different levels. I mean, the judge as to the priest or preacher, you know, those are written. Well, I don't know if this is corrected. You get the jury, you get the choir box, and then you have the levels of the lawyers and everyone else, the hoi polloi. I mean, do you know, I mean, for a fact that one was fashioned after the other? Well, it would have to be simply because the Pope owns Great Britain. So we have we have our judge in black robes. We have our preacher in black robes. Right. Et cetera. OK. So let me just interject here. Sure, Jim.

36:00I know you're probably aware of a temple in London. Just to give you a brief history to show you how it was fashioned as a religion, the people that maintained that temple at first were the Knights Templars. They were given grants of power to where they weren't subservient to the king in any way. Of course, you know the history, I'm sure, during the Middle Ages where they were said to have been doing things against the church and they were all burnt at the stake or had a terrible demise, let's just put it that way.

36:41And those that took their place were the Knights Hospitallers and that's where we get our doctors, the hospitals. That whole side of the present day that's left over from the Knights Hospitallers, well they were treated the same way over a period of time once they became powerful. by the Pope and done away with. And the people that took over their position were lawyers in the temple. And that's where they first got their hooks into the crown, where they could perform as they chose and operate with impunity.

37:22And you had a middle temple, an outer temple, and there were three sides that these Lawyers operating and the further you went into the temple just like if Nationally the more knowledge that you had to operate with Let's just stop a moment to do some business We're speaking with the informer in James Montgomery As I said, probably everybody's listening knows exactly who they are They may never have heard them before but at least they are aware of their writings and having said that I There are a number of websites out there that may be carrying their writings that formerly appeared on informerarchives.com.

38:07Now, ThinkerBeEaten.com is carrying those. ThinkerBeEaten.com, under the informer, is also displaying a book list and prices. Now, just having said that, what I have, as far as you know, that is the most current sheet you put out. Is that correct? Right. All right. Now, while we're doing this, there sometimes comes up some problems that you've encountered with people sending in different forms of money. Why don't you just take the time right now to address exactly what it is that you wish to have sent to you for them to buy books, etc.

38:51Well, that would be U.S. Postal Money Orders. I get so many people that cannot read And this is the problem why patriots are in jail because they don't read and they don't listen. They don't understand what they read and they take it for, well, I think he means this, but in there it says. U S postal money orders left completely blank and all others will be returned. A lot of times I get money orders that don't look quite right. And I later find out that they're fakes. They're frauds. They were made up by somebody. Maybe the guy made them up.

39:34Maybe he just accepted them and went and bought this, but they're frauds. Cause I went one time to take it down to the bank and they looked at it and they said, this ain't real. And we couldn't cash it. So I had to send it back to the guy and I says, U.S. postal money orders only. And leave it blank because what you do, they're just like cash. The Post Office will say, oh, you got to sign it and all this. No, you don't. You're buying cash. You're buying money. And it's supposed to be real money, but it ain't. It's all Federal Reserve notes.

40:19And what it is is I can take it. Let's say someone orders a book. and they send me a hundred dollars. I can take that and give it to the printer to print me some more books. And it's just like I took a Federal Reserve note down. He then signs it and cashes it. I don't do anything with it. I just leave it blank. He writes it in his name and signs it on the back and gives it to his distributor. Well, He can do that or he can just give it to his distributor who sells him all the paper and the paraphernalia to make the ink and all that and the printer cartridges that he uses and the roller plates and all that.

41:08He can take that unsigned that I gave him and give it to his supplier. And it's just like cash keeps going and going and going like the bunny. You know, like the pink bunny. And the guy that finally signs it, he's the one that cashes it. So it's a good way to keep the government out of your business. So it is postal money orders now. I will go into this now, although I've gotten some emails to the fact that people outside the United States would like to purchase them.

41:52Yes, I ran into this problem from a guy from Europe, England. When I went down to the post office, I said, this guy wants all the books and it's in a box. What's it going to cost me to send it over to England? I was shocked. Forty-five dollars. So I wrote back to the guy and I told him, look, I can't afford the $45. You're going to have to pay the shipping to $45. I had a man in India and a man in China that wanted the books.

42:37They're a little higher. A man in Australia wanted a book, a set of, well, he wanted one book and it was, which one are you? Okay. Now the, which one are you book is $58. Do you know for me to send that book to Australia cost me $13 per one book because it has to be sent priority mail from the U S post office. They don't guarantee delivery. There is no tracking number they can put on it because it's international.

43:21So you just take a chance that the guy is going to get it. Everyone has got it so far. But when you send overseas, the price skyrockets. I can send it to Hawaii. I can send it to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and the Philippines. Philippines are a little higher. But to Hawaii, because it's a state, it's the same price as if I mail it to Pennsylvania or New York or South Carolina. All right. There might be some remedies for that.

44:04But that for another time. But still, folks, you can access the price list on our website. And you do business strictly with the informer. But you can view that there. It may be some other places. I'm not sure about that. But it certainly is on the thinkerbeeatom.com website. And I'll include the link when I post the audio of this show, probably tomorrow. So if we can go on, I'd like to go back, if I could, to the one question, or actually two that was sent by somebody early on. And let me just, we might be probably, covered the same ground a bit, but still in all it says, was the constitution created for only the well-to-do or was it gradually changed to what we have today?

44:56Whatever. No, no, it's still, uh, it's still for the well-to-do. Um, what, um, the documents of government. Okay. And anybody can pick this up. It's on the internet and it's called. government's history of presidential presidents documents. And what I did is went on there and I found this. George Washington was born in Westmoreland County, Virginia. Now get this on February the 22nd, 1732. This is a quote right from the book.

45:43He was the first U S president serving from 1789 to 1797, but was born a British subject and they underlined it and they bolded it. I didn't bold it in my book or I underlined it. John Adams born in, uh, 1735 Quincy mass second president were born a British subject. He was all the way up to John Tyler. born 1790 in Charles C County, Virginia, the 10th president, no mention of being a British subject.

46:25And neither was Zachary Taylor because he was born in 1784. Now you go back to the original constitution and it says, You know, they got to be a U.S. citizen for so many years. Well, how can they become a U.S. citizen when the United States was not internationally recognized until the day after 1783 treaty was signed? So they couldn't fit the parameters.

47:05And that's why the Pope put them in office in, you know, Back when they were not even, they were British subjects. Well, that's by virtue of having been born in the colonies before they got statehood, is that correct? Right, because they were all British subjects at the time. Because all the colonies were British corporations. How does that change things when Van Buren is the first US born president, even though His, uh, what is it? His, uh, foremost tongue was Dutch. That's kind of funny, but yeah.

47:49Well, uh, the, the first president was Tippy Canoe and Tyler too. It goes, it was Harrison later on. John Tyler. John Tyler was the first officially recognized, uh, us president because he was born after Well, he was born as the book says, uh, John Tyler born March 29th, 1790 in Charles County, Virginia, Charles city County, Virginia, the 10th president serving from 1841 to 1845.

48:29Because you see all the other presidents before him, their mothers and fathers were very subjects. Oh, so Van Buren's folks were all were also a year and Buren. was from the publishing company Source. I did have Van Buren here because he was Martin Van Buren born on December the 5th, 1782 in New Columbia, New York, was the eighth president of the United States. He is also the only president not to have spoken English as a first language. Having grown up speaking Dutch That was the first natural born U.S.

49:14citizen to become president. No, uh-uh. Because he was born in 1782. The Treaty of Peace was signed in 1783. So how can he become the first natural born U.S. citizen? In 1782. Right. He was born in Kinderhook, New York. That's right. Of Dutch descent. I let me ask you something real quick. Now you mentioned Zachary Taylor too. Uh huh. And is he now? He was born 1784 and was the 12th president, but if you can do and Tyler too was the 10th president.

49:55So it wasn't until the 10th president that they could actually fit the description in the constitution of being a real U S president. All right. Now here's another aside and I don't know if we want to go there, but There are some suspicions that Taylor was assassinated. What was his poisoning again? It was the Borscht poisoning. That would have been thanks to the Jews, I'm sure. Because the third Borscht was the Jesuit black pope and he developed a poison to kill the other popes and the Queen Elizabeth in 1700 and some or 1600 right after in that time period.

50:50It was called the Borg Oil and that's what happened. It was used to kill just about anybody they wanted to. Read the Jesuit Oath if you've never seen that. Well, no, we've seen it. Of course, they deny it. But, you know, you're going to have to help me out here. Harrison preceded Taylor, right? Uh-huh. All right. Now there's questions about him that Harrison ran his mouth about how he did not, or recognized rather, the divine right of monarchs to rule. And in 30 days or so, he caught a cold and died. Yeah. All right. Can we assume that he got off?

51:34Yeah, yeah, I would say that all right now the next one I believe is Taylor and Tyler come you know well Tyler comes in after him and seems to play ball and everything's quiet for a while And then we have the attempt on Buchanan in 56 which killed about 20 others, but not him, right? I mean when you know this and this is what people can't understand because they can't understand how powerful the Vatican is and And, you know, this started, like I said, with St. Linus back in 70, 79 A.D.

52:12and he took over the original Catholic church because he liked the tenets of the church where it says no man can own any possessions. Okay. And so when you look at that, That is how they took over the Roman Empire and the Catholic Church. See, the Catholic Church was set up by other people. It wasn't set up by the Vatican. And the Vatican took it over at about 325 AD when it went bankrupt.

52:54The Catholic Church was set up by other people. It wasn't set up by the Vatican. I hear a backtalk in there. Yeah, that sounds like we should go and talk. I tell you what, let's do this, Iman. We're at the time we want to break. Let's break and come back at 1.05. Keep on the phone. We're just going to take a break until then, okay? OK, we'll leave the phones open, right? That's exactly right. But remember, whatever you say is going to go out. Oh, yeah. All right. Jim, if you will, you want to give us a little break music. We'll come back at 1.05. All right. All right.

53:35We're back with the informer in James Montgomery to start the second hour, the last of two. Again, the call-in number is 618-912-4681. Many of you have emailed questions. to my address and I'll get to them as best I can. Let me ask you guys, is there a thought you want to finish up before I go and start to get through these questions? Let me read just one quote. I talked previously about Washington and his opinions in regards to separation from England. This is what he said, and I quote, If you ever hear of me joining in any such measure as separation from Great Britain, you have my leave to set me down for everything wicked.

54:29And he also said it is not my wish or interest of the government, meaning Massachusetts. or of any other upon this continent separately or collectively to set up for independence. It's an Ingersoll-Norton record in 1892. He also signed it in the Constitution of the United States, Ellis Stevens, 1927. He was of the opinion, I mean, he was a loyal British subject And it was not his wish to separate from England.

55:08The main problem that aristocracy had in conducting business and being subjects of Britain, you heard taxation without representation, they had a huge time lag for when they wanted to do something in this country to get approval back from the Crown. And that was one of their main objections the way things were set up, and that's what finally led to the independence.

55:40Before we go any further, we have a caller, and it may be at this juncture that we may not keep things in a linear order that we might like to do, but I hope you guys can do the best you can to handle the requests. So Jim, if we have a caller, please bring that person on. Hello? Hello, you're on. Go ahead, bro. Okay, I got a question. It's kind of broad, but maybe your guests could explain to me or us what was the American Revolution really about? I'm assuming it wasn't organic like we've been taught and I don't know if it was a case of England heading off real trouble at the pass or whatever it was. Maybe they can explain to us what that was really about.

56:26Well, basically as I was just stating, it had to do with the aristocracy, the corporations they had set up for us, conducting business. I don't know if you're aware of it or not, but there were only between three and five percent that actually raised arms against Britain. The rest of the United States at that time were complacent and weren't necessarily in agreement with separation. It depended upon what they knew and objectives. What they were after. Herb, you have a follow-up? No, that's what I was... Well, you know, I do actually have one. Is it true?

57:09I had read on a YouTube video once, it had 30 things you don't know about America, and one of the things was that Britain had financed both sides of the war, and I was wondering if that was true, and I'll hang up and let you answer. Thanks. Bye. If that's correct, of course, that was through their bunkers. You have to understand, and this kind of dwells off on another avenue for his banking, the Rothschilds and the bankers that existed in this country back during that time. There was always a conflict of interest all across the things that were being done.

57:54But one objective, so you had anyone financing one thing, France financing another part. And if you remember, the capitulation of Yorktown was 1781. The following year, even before the peace treaty could be signed, the 1783 peace treaty, you had a treaty with France for France to recover the money that they had lent to America. So that's what it was all about, is money. And they were much nobler I have reasons given that that's what it boils down to. If I could, let me hit off that. You know, I've wondered then again, why even have the revolution?

58:39Was there enough of a backlash against the crown that they could actually fund somewhat of an army and fight? I mean, it looked to me also that much of the army that was over here was pretty much Hessian. and mercenary and not necessarily, what would you call it, British regulars? I mean, why had the revolution at all? Was it something they couldn't stop or was it something they wanted to happen in a sense like a Hegelian dialectic where, okay, you guys go ahead and revolt and we'll deal with you? Because in the end, it was all about the money, as you've said, James, and that's exactly what happened. They still had an IV into us economically.

59:24Yes, you're exactly right. It's really interesting and you could do another show just on the banking aspect. I know, yep. And it's something that needs to be understood for sure. And the listeners, that's the main thing that you need to understand. There's several events that took place in our history going back to 12-13 that any one of those events, if they're not properly understood, and viewed in the context of whatever it is you're trying to do at this point in time in history, you may or may not succeed at whatever it is you're trying to attempt to do with legal or understanding history.

1:00:14You can come up with the how. Anyway, you have to come up and look at what has taken place as far as and that's a body of law that you have to understand. In 1845, Admiralty Law came on land. Whereas before that, even in London, Britain and London, the Admiralty Law always stopped the tidewaters. Our Congress, written in 1845, which brought that on land to deal with the interstate commerce, Again, get into other issues.

1:01:00But once you see that, then go up into just before the Civil War, you have insulin cases. All these issues have to be understood in order to properly get a handle on where you're at. It's like there were parallel constitutions going on at the same time. And if you don't understand these other areas of history and law, You won't see that, and you'll live in, kind of like watching the movie The Matrix. Yes. You live in this existence that appears to be reality when it's not. I'm sorry, did you want to finish if you thought, James? Go ahead, I was passing over to Iron Man here.

1:01:43But the bottom line was, it seemed, and we have a caller, and we'll get to that caller right away, it just seemed that the point was, look, The Crown wanted their money. They had a reason to get a return on their investment. I think that's probably fair in the eyes of a contract. And it's like, okay, we don't really have to go into this fighting thing, which only is kind of like a debt or an operating expense. It only cuts into the profit. So we'll forget this fighting thing and we'll just do it through channels. And it was through banking, I'm assuming, that they could keep their tentacles into us economically. Right. All right, now let me just take on a caller if you're there. Come on.

1:02:29Hi, how are you doing? Thanks a lot for what you're doing. Incidentally, I'm in. I did get your books. I ordered them all and I have been sitting here in my living room. slowly going through them. It's a lot of information to tackle. But what I wanted to speak to, you guys had mentioned what kind of going back to the eligibility for office holders, and that would be Congress, that would be the representatives, the senators, and the president. What could have been the recourse had they not adopted, well, they did adopt the Constitution, but they Take office right away and ignore the requisites to hold office, speaking to Washington, holding office as a British subject.

1:03:19Could they have done something else? In other words, keep the Articles of Confederation going. and then hold elections for House of Representatives after seven years, and then nine years for the Senate, and then finally 13 years for the President? Or was that just, you know, altogether thrown out the window? Was there any discussions about that at all? No. In fact, when they did convene in Philly, they were supposed to go over the confederation, but The Pope had other ideas and put them in to play before they were really ready.

1:04:05In fact, let me read you a quote from the second president of the United States. My history of the Jesuits is not eloquently written, but it is supported by unquestionable authorities and is very particular and very horrible. There, the Jesuit order, restoration in 1814 by Pope Pius VII is indeed a step toward darkness, cruelty, deposition, and death. I do not like the appearance of Jesuits. If ever there was a body of men who merited eternal damnation on earth and in hell, it is the society of Ignatius De Loyola.

1:04:50That was John Adams, 1735 to 1826. And he didn't like what was going on because that's why the quote was there. And there's, there's, there's other quotes too, but he was like the second president that didn't like it. And the others that didn't say anything. they were just going along with the flow. In other words, they were told, shut up, don't say anything. It's a wonder that Adam still was alive. He said that quote. Yeah, that's right. Yeah.

1:05:33So then we all just coerced and you know, there was no discussion and this is the way it was going to be. And that was, that's the end of that. That's how it was set up. Because when I was watching on the Discovery Channel, There was a thing about the hearing in Philadelphia, and it was on, I think it was in August of 2009, and they said that there was an unknown man in the gallery, in the gallery up in the top, and he came out and said, it's about time to get down in business and vote on what we are here for.

1:06:18No one ever knew him. They don't know who he was. I assume he had to be a Jesuit from the Pope. That is when they decided to adopt this material called the Constitution. It was a corporate contract is what it was, a corporate charter. very interesting that they would bring that up on the show. Yeah, especially a show like that. Mainstream TV.

1:07:01But you see what they do is they realize that the average person doesn't understand what they're talking about. Well, we're telling you the truth, guys. Can't you understand, you know, if it ever come back on them? Well, yeah, we said this and, you know, went right over your head. That's right. So that's why I didn't know. I was with the Tea Party group up here in New York. We're screaming the Constitution, the Constitution of which I had read plies of that, but I knew I didn't understand a lot of it. I knew it was very technical. I just want to tell you that I did go and read the Treaty of 1783, and the King is clearly dictating terms.

1:07:47You could go to the Avalon site and get it and just read it, and he's saying, okay, this is what's going to happen. This is what you're going to do. Same idea. Exactly. Anytime you have war, there are rules that govern the fighting of wars and conquests. The only way that the king is able to do that is because the war was never concluded. Under the rules of conquest, that king would have been removed and all his heirs and successors. If we won, why is he dictating anything to us in a treaty? Why are we going over there and why are they still over here?

1:08:29You know, they have armed troops on the soil still after the Constitution has been signed and the treaties have been signed. One thing I would like you to, if you could, go into, it's very interesting. I brought the CD that the I-Man had with Visigoth and in it, I remember you mentioning how treaties collapsed back to prior treaties. Could you speak to that a little bit? Because that's something else. Here's what happens.

1:09:03When any two nations, this is under international law now, when any two nations have a treaty and one of them breaks the treaty, like the 1783 treaty, what treaty prior to 1783 was in force? That is what you fall back on. So that was 716-09. Yeah, exactly. 1665 was the last one of the June disorder that was written. And they also, just as a footnote here, they also cause our constitution body of law to change with the use of treaties.

1:09:49When a treaty's entered into advice and consent, and then signing of the president. If our law is in conflict with the tree that's been approved, we have to change our law to remove that inability to abide by that treaty. All right. I'm sorry, James, did you want to finish? Well, just, you know, I want people to understand how these trees work. People think, you know, just because we have a Constitution, 1787, or modified by the 14th Amendment, that that is the law of anyone they deal with.

1:10:34Well, that's the case unless you have a treaty and pass laws in that treaty that are in disagreement with the Constitution, then our Constitution has to change. Yeah, in other words, the treaty is really the rule of law. It supersedes the Constitution. You know, and it says that right there, and I've heard the most weak arguments as to why, oh, that's not really right. And, you know, since you guys are pretty good in linguistics, that one article in the Constitution, it said, what is the key word there? I'm drawing a blank on it. Technical? Well, no, it was something like notwithstanding. There you go, notwithstanding.

1:11:18Notwithstanding means in spite of. Right. So in other words, it's telling you, we don't care what your state laws are as such, a treaty that we make with foreign powers supersedes whatever happens domestically. Right. Now, let me read you a little thing that might shed a little light on it. This is from Whiting's War Powers book, because remember, we're still under war powers. Technical language to be construed technically. This is a quote right from his book. The language of the Constitution is peculiar.

1:11:54It is technical, and it shows on the face of it an intention to limit the technical operation of the tenders, not to limit the scope or intent of legislative penalties. If the authors of the Constitution meant to say that Congress should pass no law punishing treason by a tainter or by its consequences, such as forfeiture of the state, corruption of blood, and all that, they would have said so. And that would be the end of the penalties of a tainter. But there is no end, there was an end to bills of attainder.

1:12:40Instead of saying, now this is what they're saying, Congress shall have the power to declare the punishment of treason, but shall not impose the penalties of attainder upon the offender. They said, Congress shall have the power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture except during the life of the person. attained it. This phraseology has reference only to the technical offense of attainder.

1:13:14A working of forfeitures is a phrase used by lawyers to show the legal result or effect which arises from a certain state of facts. Note that since the publication of the seventh edition has been decided by Underwood J. In the Eastern District Court of the United States or Virginia, in the case of U.S. versus Lantham, first, that the Confiscation Act above cited, authorized by the Constitution, and second, that by the terms of the Act dated July 17th, 1862, was modified by a joint resolution in 1862 The punishment of treason is not limited to forfeiture of life, estate, or the offender.

1:14:08All right? And is not required to be so limited by the Constitution. But the forfeiture extends to the entire estate and fee simple. Now, you know, anybody picking up the Constitution and say, oh, it's written so we could understand it, and the average person, that's a bunch of bull.

1:14:31That is I just read you what they said and They can't understand this and that's why they think they wrote it to protect themselves and they didn't That was the furthest thing down the road that they even thought about Because they had no Say in the Constitution at all and that's why in the family the the farmer from, Pennsylvania is in the anti, um, uh, what's the name acts, the anti-federalist acts. Okay.

1:15:11They were so as because they weren't informed to be down in Philadelphia and here they're right in Pennsylvania. And, uh, so that's why they were kept out of the, uh, the whole body of the people. that was there was kept out of the meetings so that they could ramrod the Constitution by adopting it. And if you look up the word adoption in the dictionary, you'll see what I mean. It's not their own, it's someone else's that they adopt.

1:15:47In other words, you've got to be a past master of deceit. in order to do what they did. And you got to use words that the average person doesn't understand. But, you know, it also seems, and again, I would ask you, we talked about this at some time, I brought this up before, but wouldn't it behoove people to read Sources of the Constitution, which is online by students to get an idea of what's going on. In other words, much like the Patriot Act, wasn't drafted by those idiots down in Congress in 10 days.

1:16:32The Constitution wasn't knocked out in three days by these guys. No. They adopted great parts of it, if not all of it. Well, not all of it, but anyway. Well, it's just like the health care bill. It was written in foreign events. You know, and real quick, I just want to share something with you for what it's worth. A person wrote me who was in a public relations firm, we'll say in Chicago. and stated to me that the Rand Corporation was doing business with the firm for which he worked. And when they were there, they openly bragged about the fact that they were the ones that drafted the Patriot Act back in the 90s. And that's not hard for us to believe.

1:17:16And then when you look at the Constitution, and I think the larger point here is usually you'll hear people knee-jerk and say, well, you know, the Articles of Confederation weren't going to make it. And I'll just say, OK, that might be true over time. But the fact that I think is lost is that the new American US citizens were lied to right from the get-go because they thought that these framers were going down to tweak the articles, not to throw them over and supplant them with the Constitution. I think that's the point that right from the beginning, the people were lied to. Right. Exactly. If you remember, have you ever heard of Sir Edmund Burke? Yes.

1:17:56They need to read his comments in the book he had written, Birth on the Consolation with the Colonies, and this sentence he says, let the colonies always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your government, speaking of Britain. They will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance. says, perceived freedom that the king was allowing us to have in order to continue his corporation in the states.

1:18:35And, of course, the other author that you would need to read would be Adam Smith, in 1976, the Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. And it will amaze you at the awareness that they had towards the crown as to where all this was going and the power that they had over the human mind and for being perceived to be freemen when in fact they were being manipulated and controlled the whole time. I got some other questions for you. Are you okay with that or do you want to finish the thought? Not a long get go ahead.

1:19:17All right now I'm taking this one out of order only because I think it's one that you can speak to quickly, if there's such a thing as speaking to any of these issues quickly. But I think I know what this gentleman's going with, and so I'll take the liberty to say this, and that is, and we've heard this in the Patriot community quite often, the gentleman asked, they talk about Sheriff Mack, the county sheriff there, but never his last hope, and it says, does this mean that Sheriff Mack has no leg to stand on? Thanks.

1:19:47I think I kind of know where that's going with, and that is that the sheriffs all seem to be somewhat, I guess, immune to outside law enforcement and infringements, shall we say, by the feds or whatever. Well, really, they are under the direction and control of the feds because they receive grant money from them. And to whom are the feds in total? Well, the feds would be attorneys. Yeah. And they. None of the district.

1:20:27But as we spoke off mic and again, some of these topics going to be too much for us to get into and that's why you guys want this for days. Absolutely. And that's why you have the works you have written and such. And that's just the way it's going to be. Um, but, uh, I mean, you and I were speaking on Thursday. about such a thing and I asked you are all law enforcement agencies technically well you know under the chain of command which goes back to Rome and that sounds wild I know but well they are in fact that the caller that called in they said he got all the books if he would go and pull out the myth and reality book and take out the fold out that I put in there That will explain what it is.

1:21:12And it's the organizational structure at the top. It says Satan, Lucifer. They don't like Satan. They like Lucifer. Under them is the superior general of the Jesuits, which is now Adolfo Nicholas Pichon. Right through Spaniard. Uh-huh. Underneath that, he has control of the Jesuit order and the Illuminati. And then he has control of the secret society group and the money in the banking group.

1:21:43And then off of that, he has the intelligence group and I'll read just the intelligence group, CIA, FBI, NSA, KGB, the Mossad, Israel, BND of Germany, the DSEG of France, the British intelligence, the communist party, Interpol and Europol, drug cartels, mafia organized crime, FEMA, and the secret services of Palestine. That is all in their intelligence group that is under the direction and control of the Black Pope.

1:22:31I had no problem with that. With that, again, I think one of the patriot myths is that your county sheriff's the best bet you have against incursions by, I guess, even state or federal. That might be to some extent, but in a way also, and not to just dismiss that question that easily. I mean, in the end, I mean, and you know, James, what really hit me is what you wrote about, in essence, be careful of the fights you pick. I'm thinking we're coming to a day probably more speedily than we have thought of in the past, where in essence we're moving to this global authority, which by the way, the Vatican just said we need about a week ago.

1:23:15I mean, the constitution for whatever it's worth will no longer exist and we're going to be under probably a legislative, a judiciary and a regulatory global commission. You know, this is all going to pass away and be replaced by something much more strident. Yep. That was something I'm glad we're to get to. And that's public policy. And what public policy is, is governing law. And this is what the listeners need to understand, go back and look up. We don't have time to cover it all here, obviously. And that is what took place post civil war. Our constitution.

1:24:00as far as by legal definition was conquered when the 14th Amendment was passed. And you would have to go into and look at all the ramifications of what took place. The Civil War ended, amnesty was granted by Lincoln and Johnson, and then was re-declared through the First Reconstruction Act on the South. James, let me just hold you right there and get right back to your thought, because yes, That's an important point.

1:24:32The 14th Amendment, for what a lot of people believe it is or it isn't, more or less just strengthened the federation that had been created by the 13 colonies being turned into states. In other words, a federal government was not wished and they got it no matter what right after the Revolutionary War. And here's what I'll bring it back to you. But it seems to have been expanded and re-strengthened through the Civil War and the acts that came after it. That's right. If your listeners would go look up military occupation, these are legal terms or definitions. Ballantyne's Law Dictionary is a great source. You have to go look at these. Law of the Flag, which deals with avante.

1:25:18Conquest, and also don't forget what was passed during Abraham Lincoln's time, the Leibier Code, which governed the fighting of wars and included definitions. All these things were done in order those in the North, and at that time the North was a Republican, things were kind of swapped now. Anyway, the two senators, one from Pennsylvania and the other from New York, came up with the Reconstruction Acts, imposed their will on a the sovereign States of the South.

1:25:56Keep in mind, those States have been readmitted, again, obtained their suffrage through sitting in Congress and the Senate and the House and Senate. And they had re-obtained their position and gone back to it as if the Civil War had never taken place. They voted on the 13th Amendment, which shows that they were, again, part of the Union of States. Seven out of the ten ratified the 13th Amendment.

1:26:25when it came time to the northern senators proposed the fourteenth amendment now i've always heard patriots deal with the first clause you know it has to do with uh... citizenship issue but there's an even more important clause which is the fourth we ran up against for the first time since the fourteenth amendment was passed the judges? no it has to do with the uh... states not being able to question the national debt And the reason this is relevant to now, just a few months back, you know, when they passed the extension of the debt that the United States could carry, the Republicans, the Tea Party, they refused to do so because they see the damage that's being done to their country and their children, having the chains of debt tied around their children's necks.

1:27:15And so they objected and refused to move and had the power to stop what was trying to be done by the Democrats and Obama. Geithner, Timothy Geithner made the statement that they should use this section in the 14th Amendment bypassing Congress. Of course, many of the Congress stood up and complained, you can't do this against the Constitution. But I'm sorry to say, yes, they can do it. It's a matter of public policy. As soon as the conquest of the 1787 Constitution took place due to the passage of the 14th Amendment and being imposed on the South, Military districts were set up when they re-declared war against the South.

1:27:59Five districts set up that eliminated the sovereign state borders for the first time since the states were created in this country. They pulled out the representatives of those states. It put in place public governance. The same thing was done in Iraq they did then. And when the 14th Amendment was passed, Then they re-instituted the state governors. One of the things that strikes people harshly down here in the South, now I live in Florida and y'all can laugh that we really live in Long Island South and to a certain extent, that's true.

1:28:40However, where I'm at, I'm kind of like on the cusp between the new population down here and the old crackers. And I don't say that pejoratively. But the thing that I heard time and again from some of the folks who are generational down here is that the civil war aside, they could deal with the loss, but what they hated was the reconstruction acts. And isn't it true? And this goes back. So also I believe to the Rutherford B Hayes Tillman election that because several states down here in the South, uh, hello. Hello. Hello, I'm calling for the call-in for Visigoth RAW. All right.

1:29:24Well, you're here, so I'll just stop when I'm doing good. By all means, you got a question, sir? Actually, I have several. Plus, I do if time permits. Take your best shot first. Pardon me? Take your best shot first. Well, what I'd like to do just real quick, and I'll ask the best question first, but just express a deep thank you to both the informer and Robert Montgomery and Keith for the information that they brought forward here. And then I have a question in regards to the Constitution and the Paddleford case. Go ahead.

1:30:09Am I on the air now? Oh yeah, you're on the air. Go ahead. Do it. Okay. Gentlemen, thank you very much for bringing all this information. You saved me a tremendous amount of time and I have a big debt of gratitude that I need to give to both of you and along with Keith. My question in regards to the Paddleford case is that portion in the Paddleford case that expresses that the constitution is a compact, but he is not a party to it. Is that an accurate picture of reality? Yep. That came, that was a direct quote that came out of that. Correct.

1:30:55And what it announced too is that the average person is not a signer to the constitution and they never ratified it. Where's Patrick Henry's speech? Um, can I add something here? Oh, yeah. All right, guys. And also caller, uh, this is something I think where he's going. And, um, do you remember, uh, James and I, man, the email I sent you with regard to the copy infringement lawyer stating that in federal court, uh, they weren't bringing a first amendment case up.

1:31:37But in fact, it was a tort, it was a contract, a breach in a sense. Right. All right, now there was a Wall Street Journal story, which I also sent you guys, where a woman who was involved in some kind of dispute and got involved with putting something toxic in her neighbor's mailbox, which made this federal up in Illinois, that she wanted with her counsel to go ahead and press their case on the 10th Amendment. And the federal court came back and said, uh, you know, you're not probably the one that should do this. It's the States instead. Now, given what the caller is talking about with Paddleford, is this not the case?

1:32:18As some of these people had notified me about that you cannot go in as a person like the caller, like myself, like you guys, you can't go into federal court and use the constitution as a remedy. Right. Yeah. Because see a person is a, um, a subject of the government. And in fact, what solidifies it is the saying of the Solicitor General of the United States, which was Lincoln's point man, and since he left, there's never been another Solicitor General.

1:33:03But this is what he said in 1864, because remember, in 1861, the reason why the Lieber code was applied and it's article 149 is applied to everybody today was the fact that 12 Stat 319 made us, the people, the enemy of the United States Corporation. Not the true court because a man named Pete Stern, which you probably haven't heard of, he found the original court, the original Supreme Court on Constitution Avenue in the District of Columbia.

1:33:51It's not the one on First Street that everybody thinks. That is a court of special jurisdiction authored by Congress. Congress knows it. Now, here's what Whiting said, and it's a direct quote, and it comes right out of the Legal Classics Library War Powers under the Constitution, 1864, that was entered by an act of Congress in a clerk's office in the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. And here's what he said.

1:34:35An alien owes no allegiance or obedience to our government or to our constitution laws or proclamations. A citizen subject is bound to obey them all to refusing such obedience. He is guilty of a crime against his country. and finds in the law of nations no justification for disobedience. An alien being under no such obligation is justified in refusing such obedience.

1:35:18Over a alien enemy, our government can make no constitutional laws or proclamations of obligatory force because our laws bind only our own subjects and have no extra-territorial jurisdiction. There's more, but I won't read that. But basically, Article 149 says of the Lever Code, which is General Orders 100, which is what used to be, well, let me put it this way. Today we have statutes and regulations. Back then, there was no regulations.

1:36:03But this is the first attempt to install the LIBR code as a regulation to the statute 12 Stat 319. So now, being a subject, you fit the definition in Article 1 49 of the Lieber Code.

1:36:29And that says that anytime you question anything, this is what leads into the 14th Amendment of government, you are the enemy and are to be dealt with, whether you do it in writing, oral, or any other way. So that's where the sheriffs now are in a bind because when you read Anderson on sheriff's book this goes way back when they weren't under the control of the federal corporation then because let's look at words okay what does federal mean most people have no clue they think it means Federal government?

1:37:27No. Federal means contract. Pure, simple contract. And the founding fathers and everybody knew about it. So when they're talking about a national government and a federal government, they're talking about a national government and a contract government in commerce. And you become that commercial aspect when you become a U.S. citizen and you lose your status as a man.

1:38:03Now, if you remember, and nobody does, but go back and read the article, well, read the Federalist Paper 42 and 43. In there, it says, and Madison was very afraid of these aliens Uh-huh. Those aliens mentioned in 42 and 43, Federalist paper, were the free white inhabitants inhabiting the states. Now, what they did in law is they took and made a term.

1:38:47And in law, there are terms and there are words. And a term is something that the Congress devises itself and makes the definition so it doesn't fit the word definition. So they can be talking about a term and you're thinking words and they don't mix. They can't. So what they did is they took the term non-resident alien because that term means in law, a man, not a person.

1:39:30A person is always an artificial character and a person is always subject to, and the same way with individual, they took that and they devised a worry to get around that because an individual is a U S citizen and how you know is you go and pull 5 USC 552A6 in the FOIA acts and in there it says that the definition of individual means United States citizen. Now you take that and you go to the definitions in 7701A one, two, three, four, five, you know, whatever it is, all says the term.

1:40:26In other words, the second word is term. That tells you, you better watch out because it's not a word definition. It's a definition that Congress gave that word. They now call it a term. So person. corporation and everything is all together. That means that a person is part of the corporation of the United States. Cole, we only have a little bit of time left. If you've got a follow-up you'd like to ask by all means and we have to get going. Yes, I do as a matter of fact.

1:41:08The earlier explanation that the informer was giving, how does that tie into the amended definition for the Trading with the Enemies Act saying that all US citizens are, hence, enemies of the state. Yeah, well, no, they're enemies of the banking system. What happened is this, and it's going to shock you. In 1933, well, actually before, well, it was in 1933, The Federal Reserve came to President Hoover's paper house, and I have the papers, the actual presidential document papers here.

1:41:53And he said that the banking, you remember in 1929, the crash and all this money and people were dying and jumping out of windows and, you know, killing themselves because they lost so much money. Well, what happened at that particular point in time? They were trying to go into the banks and take their money out, which is mainly gold and silver. It wasn't Federal Reserve notes, although they were passed around then for United States notes, but mostly gold and silver. So Rockefeller owned the Chicago bank.

1:42:35And if they did a run on that, he would go belly up. Well, all right. Hoover wasn't a friend of Rockefeller. So the attorneys for the Federal Reserve actually wrote the amending of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1972, 1917, making the American, the U.S. citizen, the enemy of the bank, not the enemy of the state. They were already the enemy of the state by 12 Stat 319 by Lincoln.

1:43:13Now, what they did is remember this was March the third and they approached Hoover wanting him to sign off on the amending of the Trading with the Enemy Act written strictly by the attorneys for the Federal Reserve, not Congress, strictly for the attorneys of the Federal Reserve. And like I say, I've got the presidential papers of Hoover and anybody can go and pull them if they go to the Library of Congress and get them.

1:43:52They can get the actual presidential papers where this is all explained in it. And anyway, they devised a way. Now here's what is really the kicker. How do you get the enemy to take a banking ID number? Simply create a front or a ploy to get them to take that number voluntarily.

1:44:32Because if they didn't, the United States could sue the United States under the 13th amendment. involuntary servitude. So how do they do it? Oh, let's create a front called the Social Security, where everybody would go down and voluntarily accept the Social Security number, which is in reality the enemy banking ID number to deal in banks, period. The two cases in Stewart versus Davis in 1935 and Fleming versus Nestor, they come out and said emphatically and to the point by words, there is never been a social security system and never will be.

1:45:25And not one dime goes into it by any force of any law whatsoever. So that's where your social security number is really The enemy banking ID number. Our voluntary servitude number. Yes. It's a voluntary servitude number that you can't get out of because it's not your number and everybody tries to rescind it. They can't because they're not the party that gave it out in the first place. Like, all right, can you change your address where you're at? No. because you didn't do it.

1:46:07It was done eons before you got to that point of owning that property. Now, here's what happened. In 1998, I got out of the system. I got the letters from the Pope and the Attorney General of Great Britain, who was the real Attorney General of this country. And it was John Morris at the time. And I got letters from the DOJ.

1:46:41I got letters from the private IRS, which is owned by the Vatican, which created them because the Vatican and James can tell you the Vatican was the first corporation that instituted an income tax on the employees. Right. Well, in 1861, The first income tax in the country was instituted. Now, wait a minute. Everybody says, no, 1862. Sorry. I have the actual documents from the papers of the first constitutional tax laid by the Pope.

1:47:26And that was 1861. It only lasted for seven years. They were testing. How much can we do and get away with by creating this income tax? Well, the first one bombed out because much, much of the people were still alive of the relatives of those who died in 1776. There was some people that were still alive, but they were kind of old. Anyway, um, They put a kibosh on the first income tax in 1861.

1:48:09They had to redo in 1862 to make the income tax subject is the employees of the U S government period. And I have the actual documents from 1866 that says so. And let me see if I can find it here.

1:48:39It is the letter from the Secretary of Treasury in answer to the salary tax upon clerks to postmasters, 1866. This is to be in fact February the 12th. And it's a resolution to that of the House of the 12th of February relative to the salary tax upon the clerks to the postmasters.

1:49:20Now what they did is I'm going to read you a couple phrases. Clerks to assessors of internal revenue are appointed by the assessors. Neither law nor regulations require them to take an oath of office because as the law at present stands, they are not in the public service of the United States through the agency of the assessor, but are the private personal service of the assessor as a principal who employs them. No money is advanced in the United States by the United States for the payment of such salaries Nor do the assessors perform the duties of dispersing agents of the United States in paying their clerks.

1:50:10See, they call the IRS agents clerks then. The entire amount is paid directly to the assessor. No salary tax is therefore collected or required by the Treasury Department to be accounted for or paid on account of payments to assessors, clerks, as the United States pays no such clerks, agents, nor has them in its employee or service. And they do not come within the provision of existing laws imposing such a tax." Now that says a mouthful, doesn't it? And it's signed by H. McCulloch, the Secretary of Treasury, to Hugh McCulloch.

1:50:57Well, that's Hugh McCulloch. And it goes on and it talks all about everything until it comes to the last one, the auditor. And the auditor was I.N. Arnold of the United States. And he says, now this you can find in today's law. The following section of the act approved July 13th, 1866 provides for the payment of salaries on the salaries of persons in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States. When exceeding $600 per annum of a tax of 5% on the excess above, then $600.

1:51:43No deductions whatsoever, whatever, are authorized. Section 165, and you'll find this in today's tax code. That there should be levy collected and paid on the salaries and officers or payments of services of persons, not that persons, not man, in a civil, military, naval, or other employment or service of the United States, including senators and representatives and delegates in Congress. It says the government of the United States or persons and the employee thereof when making any payment to any officers or persons as aforesaid or upon settling and adjusting the accounts of such officers or persons to deduct and withhold the aforesaid tax.

1:52:34Provided further that this section shall not apply to payments made to mechanics or laborers upon public works. In other words, the average man was not subject to this tax in 1866. So they changed it by presumption. And now all persons, if you read the tax code, it says person made liable. Doesn't say man, because man is a non-resident alien and he is exempted from all tax statutes. And if you read which one are you, you find an abundance of non-resident alien sections within that code book.

1:53:23All right, gentlemen, we've got to get running. Kohler, thank you very much. Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate it. All right, thank you. And guys, we've got to call it a day. OK. But I'm just going to throw something out to you. One is that we had some questions about becoming a sovereign individual, about being a non-alien resident. Admiralty law all of them really good questions, but it takes a long time to address them.

1:53:49Oh, yeah Plus that's the reason why you guys wrote what you did so I you know in a way you don't have to give away everything or just You know expound on everything and if an item because that's why you guys do what you did But I will say this in end I would like you just to reprise if you would and just generally I what you found when you try to get out of the IRS system. And then what I would do is also ask you, James, just to give us a final comment, if you will, and perhaps we can do this at another time. You know, once again, everybody would appreciate it. But again, you know, we can't be generous with your time.

1:54:28So I mean, if you would, because when you said that to me that one time off mic, I'm like, what? And now, of course, we all understand. But I had once asked you when you went to expunge yourself from the IRS system, the chain of command you had to go through. And then I said to you, well, what does that tell us then about who rules the world? And if you don't mind, I appreciate it. And then James also, if you would come on afterward and then we'll call it a day. Okay. What I did on the chain of command is I addressed the Pope. This is an administrative complaint.

1:55:10I addressed the Pope and I addressed the attorney general of Great Britain and nobody in the United States government that I addressed. Okay. Now I got, um, uh, a phone call from the attorney general of Great Britain and I didn't know who it was. I thought it was a guy pulling my leg. And I talked to him for 20 minutes, 40, well actually 40 minutes I talked to him. And then towards the end, I realized, Oh, this guy's for real. And he asked what I could do for you.

1:55:54All right. And I said, uh, well, I didn't know what to say. You know, I was, I was shocked at who I was talking to. Well, anyway, he took care of everything. He expunged just about everything I had. And they had told me to go to court. They had ordered me and my wife to court. Well, I didn't go because I knew I had this administrative complaint in the works. And so I get a letter from the DOJ about 12 days later.

1:56:35after talking to the Attorney General, and it said, do not, these are bolded words in the letter, do not appear in court. Those orders were issued in error. However, any subsequent orders are also to be ignored. Now, if they didn't want me in that court, no way, no shape, no how. But was that because it was, quote, you know, between you and them secretly? Yeah. Well, no, that would challenge the public policy. Yeah. Okay. All right. So they didn't, in other words, they didn't want that to be an example for everyone else to follow. That's right. Yeah.

1:57:21And I got those letters here and if James wants to see them, I can pull them out. All right. But so then what they did is they said, okay, then I get a letter from the National Accounts Director of the defunct US Treasury, because there is no US Treasury. It went bye-bye in 1921. So they said, all right, we are going to give you what you want. And the IRS drafted up and gave me what I wanted, an expungement of all records. Then they got smart.

1:58:04And they said, we are removing your social security number. Do not use it again. Ever. And my wife, you know, she got little men out of shape and she says, um, Oh, look what you did. Now we can't get any social security. I says, don't worry about it. I know what I'm doing. Well, When they got rid of the Social Security number, the next month, we get our Social Security checks. Why? It's a gift. It's a gift from Congress.

1:58:45And I have it in the 1953 analysis of the Social Security, where even the IRS admitted Social Security is a gift. Yeah, you have no contract. There's no contract. Right. That's excellent. That's in the, what is it, the secret history book? Yeah. It's in that one where you had a transcription between, uh, I guess the congressional subcommittee and the head of the SS and, and they're at, you can see that they're asking him like incredulously. So you mean to tell me you guys have been working for 40 years or such that they had no contract with you? And he goes, uh, that is right. Yeah. And, and that's why you had no contract and you have no rights to social security. It's a gift.

1:59:29And the reason why it's a gift is you know who the real beneficiary is? Congress because here's what happens when you retire and you go on social security. The letter on your Medicare card is an a after it, right? It's a suffix. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine a that is not a social security number. And the reason why it's not a social security number, is because of 301-7701-11 of Title 26. And it's in the Federal Register 9947, March 15th, 1974.

2:00:06And it says, for purposes of this chapter, the term social security number means a taxpayer identifying number of an individual or a state which is assigned pursuant to section 6011b or corresponding provisions of Trier law pursuant to section 6109 in which the nine digits are separated by hyphens as follows, 000-00-0000. Such term does not include a number with a letter as a suffix which is used to identify an auxiliary beneficiary under the social security program and the terms account number and social security number refer to the same.

2:01:10You are an auxiliary beneficiary. Congress is the original beneficiary because they accepted the money put into the general treasury so they could use it when they wanted. That's how it was set up. And So I proved it to my wife. I went down to the bank and I said, we're going to the bank. Oh no, we're not getting, you're not going to mess it up any more than what it is. I said, I ain't going to mess it up. Went down to the bank and I showed the paper. I took all my paperwork down and I showed it to the bank manager and she said, okay. I says, I want to be put on my wife's account. because she is the same as me.

2:01:55She has the same status as me, a woman, not a person. And, and she says, okay, come with me. We went over and, uh, to an old lady, an older woman in there. And she said, now get this, listen to the words carefully. I'm going to say I'm really just exactly like she said this man, not person, This man wants the paperwork to be put on his wife's account. In case she dies, he can step into her shoes. Well, the woman didn't listen. She pulled out a stack of papers three quarters of an inch thick.

2:02:38And I looked at myself and I said, Oh, great. So the bank manager says, Oh no, no, not them. Are you sure? The woman said, Yeah, I'm sure I've seen all his paperwork and he's one of them. They know. They know. I mean, you know, they're not kidding anybody. So she pulled in, she put them away and pulled out three pieces of paper. Three pieces of paper. Two were instructions and one was a signature that I had assigned that I was the husband of the account holder. No social security number.

2:03:22No, uh, signature card, nothing else had to be signed. That was it. End of story. You're one of them, huh? I'm one of them. I am a national declared non resident alien, but you can't get away with it because you know why the state, the DMV and everybody else, they don't know. They think you're a person. So you got to get a driver's license. You got to get this.

2:03:58You got to get that, you know, and, um, no, I'm sorry, but, uh, you can have all this stuff that you got to fight in court every time you got to go in for something that you want. Um, you know, and that's, that's for another day because we have, like I said, a bunch of questions, but the other thing is also, I don't mean to necessarily, I guess, spurn some of the questions that I've gotten with regard to this, but my point is also, what are you planning to do?

2:04:38And the other thing is, and you've been very meticulous about this, Iman, and that is, you know, if you're going to go through this booby trap landscape, you got to be careful because if it doesn't work out... Oh, yeah. It can ruin one's life at a very early age. Let me give you one short thing before we go. You can get out of it. How you do it, and I think I sent this to you because I just wrote the article and it's on your website. The statute at large to become a U.S. citizen is the act of Congress of April the 14th, 1802, 2 Stat 153, Section 28, Section 1, Revised Statute 2165.

2:05:32You've got to go that far back. Now, pay attention. It provides that an alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the following manner and not otherwise. In other words, birth certificates had nothing to do with it. Driver's license had nothing to do with it. Voter registration has nothing to do with it. Nothing. Now, here's what happened. The case is that 1893, city of Minneapolis versus REUM, Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, May 29th, 1893. Now I said, pay attention.

2:06:19What to what, of course. Well, I put dummy, the red words and not otherwise, just because you voted does not mean you are a US citizen and you got any latches like filing tax forms, getting licenses, birth certificates and all that. Patriot crap that is going around. All right. Now here's what happened. Mr. Rem was under a king. And he was in his country and he went back and forth. I am, I am not, I am, I am not. So many times the court ruled against them. Why?

2:07:00He had not signed himself away from the King and was not entitled to be a naturalized U S citizen. Yeah. He registered, he voted in Minneapolis and he voted and everything. And the court said, don't matter. You didn't do the three things to become a U S citizen. Well, let me read you what the three things are first. This is direct quote from the court under conclusions of law. He shall two years at least prior to his admission declare before a proper court, his intention to become a citizen of the United States. Well, Mr. Rum, he did it to renounce his allegiance.

2:07:45to the potentiate or sovereignty of which he may at the same time be citizen or subject. Mr. Rem did not do this. He kept humming around, but he never finalized that in writing. Second, he shall at the time of his application to be admitted declare on oath before someone of the courts above the time of his application. Um, specified that he will support the Constitution of the United States, and he absolutely and entirely renounces and abjures all allegiance, fidelity to every foreign prince, potentiate state entity, renounces and abjures it, particularly by name to the prince, potentiate state or sovereignty of which he was before a citizen.

2:08:39Can you imagine everybody getting up and saying, I renounce you God and I will not do what you want to do because I am taking my allegiance away from you and giving it to this corporation called Mammon. All right. And it said with which the proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court. So it's recorded somewhere that you became a citizen of the United States. Third, It shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court, admitting such alien that he has resided within the United States.

2:09:19And we know what United States are talking about the corporation five years at least, and within the state or territory where he has resided within the United States. And it says, and that He should have held one year at least. And that during that time he has behaved as a what? Man, not person of good moral character attached to the principles of the constitution, yada, yada, yada. No, they said man, not person as today's corporate Rico statutes do not mention man at all.

2:10:03The statute was amended once in May 26, 1824, just to remove the two year limit in the beginning that the other statute did. And that's it. So that's, that's your way out. Once you know how to use it and when to use it and what to do. Is it true that the word person goes back to the Roman use of it, which is pretty much what? Slave, right?

2:10:35Yeah, because if you look at on ATG press, I had wrote the word person and it gave all the definitions by the law writers at that time to up to today when it was picked up by the Clemson University and other universities, DeWitt and Andrews, and I can't think of the other names, but it's on person. And they said, in law, the physical man is not subject to the law.

2:11:20But a person is, because a person has character. That is not status. Man has status. Remember that. Man has status. Person has character. So in other words, we're really dealing with a dual personage. That's right. In terms of dealing with the federal government. That's your straw man. They created the corporate entity with the hall cap letters. And how do you know that? Well, it's been bantied about by all the dictionaries and I think All you have to do is go to the secretary of state's office, go to the UCC section where corporations are formed and named.

2:12:00You will find that every corporation has to take a capitalized name. Food Lion, GM, JCPenney, no matter what it is, it's all capital words, capital letters. And I found it in Georgia. And you can find it in your own state where it has to be all capital letters, no matter who. Now I'm looking at the section that we extricated from apgpress.com with what you're speaking about right now.

2:12:40Would that be addressed in the PDF that is entitled Citizen Equal Subject? No, it's just titled Person. I'm looking to see if we have that. All right, maybe not, but also you can send that to me, Tantin. The person? Yeah, that particular essay, yeah. Yeah, it's quite long. That's okay, but here's the other point also for you and James. There were works that you never got a chance to put up on informerarchives.com. Right. I understand something. I'm not going to get anal about this stuff.

2:13:22But the point is, if you want to send the works that have not gotten out since the close of that website, we'll put them up. And I'm more than willing to have everybody else who wants to keep this thing alive put them up as well. So it's not like I'm going to take them. It's like, yeah, it's mine and no one else's. That's not the case whatsoever. Oh, yeah. But I mean, since they've not been able to get out since ATG Press, You know, all of us would be more than willing to get them out for you. So if that's the case, please send them along and I'll put them up. And also a gentleman by the name of Jeff Long out of DC who also had a good question about DC. But anyway, we're not going to get that today. He wants to put it up on his website, redacted news.

2:14:04So just understand also that if you have work you want to get out, we'll get it out and we'll put it in up places that no matter what happens to any of us, whether natural or otherwise, it'll still live on, okay? Now, the other one you got to get is not conjecture, not truth. I got that one up. Okay. Now that one is when we went into the North Carolina archives and we found stuff that you wouldn't believe. The Pope is mentioned, the Queen was mentioned, and everything in North Carolina. And there's two parallel governments operating in North Carolina today.

2:14:49And this was finally admitted to a man called Paul Burge in October of 2008 by the secretary of state, Elaine Marshall. And he was trying to find the original court that he could go to on his driver's license and property tax issue. And she said, Oh, We don't recognize that court didn't say they didn't exist, but we are a corporation and that's it. And that's as far as you're going to go. That's what she told them. Yep.

2:15:27Um, you know, I also spoke to you about, uh, as somebody who was thinking out loud on guns and butter, um, one of the shows that comes up on a national petroleum radio. And the gentleman was behind two people who wanted to approach the federal courts about a state of execution for McVeigh. Well, for obvious reasons, they were survivors of, well, I mean, they were spouses or relatives to those who died in the Murrow building explosion. And the court said, no, get out of here. And so anyway, the person who was talking to Guns and Butter was like not understanding all this, which is easy to understand from our point of view.

2:16:10But he said out loud, he said, you know, it's almost like we have two parallel governments going on. And that's when I was thinking out loud, yep, you got that right, but you don't know why. That's right. And of course, it never goes further than that. We just look, we just, you know, we kind of chalk it up to like, well, you know, that's the courts and the law and obfuscation and all that stuff, you know, you know, and that is true. I mean, it's a much of a barrier because you guys, I mean, you guys are versed in this, but you know what it's like. It's like waiting through seaweed. It never ends. Yeah, right.

2:16:40Well, that's why on that one particular section in the myths and everything, quoting, this is from section 105, the purpose of the constitutional grant, the essential harmony of the maritime law, the grand purpose of the constitution was to unify the several states, several meaning separate, the whole people in their national international and interstate relations and all other purposes were subordinate and ancillary to this.

2:17:19And in section 123, it says the commission to the governor as vice admiral, meaning they're operating in maritime law, was granting, let me see, I got to get this over here. All right. Was granting in language so clear that it cannot be misunderstood an Admiralty jurisdiction as wide and beneficial as the most zealous supporters of the English Admiralty ever claimed for it. That's what we got. All courts are controlled by Congress from the Supreme Court.

2:18:05down to the district court because they're all legislative courts. There is not one Article III judge or court in this country now or ever was since 1789. So in essence, there are no three branches. There is no separate delegation. No, no. It's one big happy corporation. And that would also make the the president, a dictatorial and a CEO. A monarch, yeah. Okay. And that's when Washington says, no, I don't want to be king. It's okay. I'm going to be a monarch anyway. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks for, but we'll take care of that. All right.

2:18:49We're going to leave it at there, but I do want to do this before we go. James, honestly, I mean, you've been out there and not have said much of late, but I mean, is there anything you'd like to share with us before we go? I would just add to the listeners, Hosea 4-6. My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge. Of course, he was talking, speaking of his word, but also knowledge out here is second to what we've been discussing today. The only way you're ever going to be free is to remove the ability of those who wish to oppress you. That's only accomplished through increasing your knowledge to what they have.

2:19:32And that pretty much sums it up. But I have to say this. Most people have no idea what's going on here and how we all found our way to both of you and some others who are sharing the truth. And I tell you, we found some books that are back in antiquity, 100, 200 years old, who have stated all this. But of course, that information was never allowed to get through for obvious reasons. Right. But it is tough to get even Christians who should know better because of their understanding that temporal powers are not something we should be involved with. We are not of this world, and that's another whole thing.

2:20:12And that's a situation that is sad to see about the involvement of Christians thinking they're doing God's will by getting behind political parties. You know, it's crazy, but that's the way things are. What you've shared with us, it's something that people have to want to go to find out, and many of them, as you well know, are not willing to find out what's behind the curtain in a land of Oz. Let me give you something that James just said. Sure. My people are destroyed for the lack of knowledge. Right. Now listen to this second part. Because thou hast refused knowledge, I will also refuse thee that thou shall be no priest to me, And seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."

2:21:03of Isaiah 4 or 6. Alright, but then what this means is, and this is key, okay, just tell me if I got this right. And that is, a lot of well-meaning Christians who listen to the mainstream media and believe in government and all that, have taken that on as the truth and therefore supplanted what Jehovah gave us. Right. And so therefore, we are in a situation where they are blinded. Yeah, because Hosea 8.1 said, and 4 said, they have transgressed my covenant and transgressed my law, the law of the spirit of the life in Christ. Hosea 1b with Romans 8.2 in parentheses added.

2:21:44And they have set up kings not by me, they have made princes I knew not, Hosea 8.4. And then And I heard another voice from heaven say, go out of her, my people, that be ye not, be not partakers of his sins. Revelation 8 14. And then Peter and the apostles answered and said, we ought to obey God rather than man. Acts 5 29. But isn't it unbelievably exquisite that so many Christians have taken on or at least attributed to mainstream news and their government. Yeah.

2:22:25Supposedly the pinnacle of honesty when it's an absolute boondoggle. Oh, yeah, yeah. But they embrace that. And then, of course, you have the preachers. I mean, this goes on and on and on that amalgamate both. And it's like, you know, they try to play the truth or the lie. Yeah. And that was they don't want to believe what they've been force fed all the years. Yes. Guys, we've got to go, and I'd love to keep you on forever, and you guys got a roll going. Yeah, if we could talk for another six hours.

2:23:02I tell you what, maybe in increments, if we could return to the way things used to be, Iman and James, if you could join in, are we going to attack these things elementally and take them block by block? But I did want to at least have you guys back out and exposed to a lot of folks who have come on to understand what you're talking about, and from that point on, We could probably make recording a little bit more friendly for both of you if that's okay Yeah, James could even stay at his house, right?

2:23:29Yeah, yes And also one last thing if you want to forward the writings and like I said, I'm not going to keep these unto myself I mean, but we'll put that up and just consider it as I had spoken to you many years ago Jane I'm am that you know if ATG ever went down which eventually it did and Just put them up. That's all we care about. We just want to get it out there. Yeah. So, uh, I'm sorry. Did you want to say something? I'm out. What's that? Oh, I know. I, I thought you wanted to, uh, to, uh, add something to that. Uh, no, I just get, get the people to read your listeners, the 1788 Virginia debates. Okay. Pull them.

2:24:10It's not big, but it's very informative because Henry stated in the June 8th, 1788 debate. Here's what he said, but sir, give me leave to demand what right they had to say we the people. My political curiosity, exclusive to my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask who authorized them to speak the language of we the people instead of we the states. States are the characteristics and soul of the confederation.

2:24:47If the States be not agents of the compact, this goes back to the Battleford case, it must be one great consolidated national government of the people with a small P of all the States. Yep. And so after that, when on the, on the seventh, he said, the constitution is said to have beautiful features. But when I come to examine these features, sir, they appear to be hardly frightful. Among the deformities, it has an awful squinting. It squints towards monarchy. Your president may easily become a king.

2:25:31Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed by what may be the small minority may continue unchangeably this government. although hardly defective. And I shall add at this point also that if people want resonating arguments, you've quoted Nock. Nock is out there for people to read. You also have Spooner. And also I came upon someone else who understood the scam back in the 60s, and I don't know if you're familiar with this name, Charles Ferdinand Lundberg. No, I heard of Lundberg, but I can't remember That's okay.

2:26:15He wrote a book in 68 that was kind of a smash, which was called The Rich and the Super Rich. But as some of the listeners have tracked down, even in the 60s, he was saying, no, this is not the thing. So there were voices out there, but it comes no surprise to you gentlemen that they've been suppressed. But they're out there. And so from the beginning of the country to this very day, there have been people who are saying, come on, I mean, this is a scam. Yeah. All right. Well, H.L. Mencken said it nice. Here's what he said. Democracy is also a form of worship. It is a worship of jackals by jackasses. That's what we like Mencken.

2:27:01H.L. Mencken. No, I mean, he was great. Yeah. All right. Listen, guys, what I'll do is I'll put up the information of the sale of the books and also to try to draw more attention, both of your works on our site. And if it's okay, maybe we can get back together again, not necessarily live, but at least just isolate some of these discussions to make them a little bit more informative. If you're okay with that and, you know, time and health all work to that manner, I'm glad if that's all right. All right. I'm in. Thank you very much, James. Nice to have met you and thank you for coming out. We got a voice now to go with the writing, but not to the face. All right, brothers. Thank you very much. Okay. All right. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.

2:27:46This has been, this got thrown live. We have had on the informer and James Montgomery. Also, if you want to engage in any kind of conversation after the fact here, all you have to do is refresh your browser and that will enable the chat room. Okay, so if you're there right now, refresh the browser, and you guys can engage in the conversation. Thank you very much for listening, for all of you. Also, Big Jim in Illinois, thank you for making this possible, and for all of you who are sending questions, and fight the good fight. This is VisitGoth, we'll see you later. The Pope, and that was what they set out to do, and you can see this all the way up in the force of Civil War, you know, Lincoln was assassinated.

2:28:35Most people are taught that John Wilkes Booth and that's all you ever hear. You never hear the main conspirators. He's a Jesuit. Yeah. You had John Surratt and Mary Surratt. Mary Surratt, she was one of the ones that was hung on the gallows. But John Surratt, after they had succeeded in killing Lincoln, he escaped up through Canada and the next time that he was found, he was at the Vatican. and provided protection by the Pope, and the United States finally worked out a deal with the Pope to bring him back for trial. Of course, it was just a show trial. When he came back, the audience was full of Jesuits, intimidated juries, and he lived the remainder of his life in New York and died in the 1900s.

2:29:21Just to fill in, yes, I agree with you completely. He went over and was in the Vatican guard of all things. Yeah. And it's true. And in fact, Wilcox in his book, Transformation of the Republic, had an image of a newspaper where it's a United States daily that said, if Sarat's not returned, the United States is breaking off diplomatic relations with the Vatican. I understand that, diplomatic, because they are a nation state as well. Then what happened was they sent Sarat off. And it gave him one more chance. I don't know if you've heard about this, but he escapes in Alexandria and is caught and then brought back. I was surprised.

2:29:59And what also was interesting is that his, I guess, handler was the priest Wiggett out of Baltimore. And of course they had the trial in Georgetown, which is a hotbed of Jesuitical behavior. And it ended in a hung trial. Right. A hung jury. So he never got convicted. But what's really interesting also is he wrote his memoirs and the story goes that Sarat was so depressed that nobody wanted to publish them that he burnt them. Personally, I'm not believing that. Yeah. Okay. Yes.

2:30:35So what the listeners need to remember is it's an old adage that the victor always is the one that writes history. And that's why a lot of these documents that you do not say you've never heard of, you weren't taught this in school, even up through college, many times these historical facts are not taught. And that is why, because the victor, the pope and the king have chosen to stay behind the scenes and keep these facts sealed. And let me inject something here.

2:31:18How this is proven and I went online and I found it. I have the Encyclopedia of American History and it was a school book published by Harper and Row and it was in the schools in 1955. I remember because I looked at the book at that time when I was in high school and it's old history. You know how young kids are. Well, what's the history got to do?

2:31:49Well, anyway, I found out that Rupert Murdoch, who was a Jesuit, was sent here to buy out Harper and Row so they could destroy this history book because the history book is diametrically opposite of what you have today in America's history books. And, um, He bought out Harper and Row.

2:32:19They formed another company and they then methodically went to all the bookstores and all the schools and the libraries and took out these books so no one would know the real truth of history. That's what I have. When I was doing some research in Chapel Hill in about 1992, I went to the library and I was doing the work for David Dodge.

2:33:00And David Dodge asked me to do certain work on the original 13th Amendment. And I said, yeah, okay, I got some of it. but I don't have others, and I went to North Carolina into their UNC Chapel Hill University Library, and I found Carter was knowing Lloyd. And, of course, you'd have to ask yourself, well, why in the world would he have the authority or even the semblance to make such a declaration? And the reason is because he was a silent third party.

2:33:42because of what took place in 1213, and most people are not aware of that. And the Magna Carta was again brought forth in 1225 that had a number of its airgrass had been removed by the Pope and with the King at that time. And they went across again the Pope's approval or disapproval. And because of the taxation issues, it wasn't accepted by the parliament at that time.

2:34:22And in 1297, you see that Magna Carta brought it up yet again in its modified form, not as the same document that it was in 1215. And again, you see, I believe it was 1305, the pope at that time ruled that document knowing Lloyd and said King Edward at that time was not to be held liable for anything that he did for a son.

2:34:52James, let me ask you, was the Magna Carta ever a legitimate document and legitimate in the sense that what it dictated ever came true or was it right from the get-go a failed document? It was failed in a sense for two reasons. Number one, by the way it was done. Just as basic law, you can't be compelled by forcing the rest to sign any sort of a document. Now, in the minds of the bairns, I'm sure it was legitimate. King did capitulate and sign that document rather than have his head cut off. But as a matter of You know, the rule of law contracts, that was not a valid document.

2:35:41The Pope wrote it as such. Again, August 24th of 1215. Yeah, because why the Pope did that is I'm reading now on page 52 of the National Canon Law of the United States. Can the Sovereign Pontiff and null all national canon law? The answer is, we reply in the affirmative. For national canon law, whether originating in customs, statutes, privileges, or concordance, depends upon the express or tacit sanction of the pope.

2:36:27And then going over to article two, It says, the American canon law of the national canon law of the United States. And they ask what is meant by the American canon law. And they go into it and they say, our sanction were tolerated by the Roman pontiff, for as was seen, no national law can become legitimate except by the least of the facet or legal consent of the pope.

2:37:02Hence, the just national or the exceptional ecclesiastical laws prevalent to the United States may be abolished at any time by the sovereign pontiff. That is because of the treaty that was actually signed and sealed April 21st on 1214. And this is what the Patriots and most attorneys have no concept. So in a way, is it true that the Magna Carta, like the Constitution, really weren't worth the paper they were written on to a certain extent? Exactly. Exactly.

2:37:45Because when they held the sword to King John's throat, that was the duress that James was talking about in August when the Papal Bowl came out denouncing the Magna Carta. The book that most people might be able to buy today that does have that specifically printed in the book is the Federal Reserve Conspiracy and Rockefeller, their gold corner by Emanuel M. Josephson. All right, welcome everybody.

2:38:33I think that you'll probably be very familiar with these two gentlemen. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that's the case. But they were very pivotal in taking the scales off my eyes and showing me exactly what we're involved with. And they're going to come out for two hours. The I-Man you might have heard before, James Montgomery, you probably haven't. And so I just want to welcome you, I-Man, and also you, James, to the show. Thanks for doing this. Yeah, same here. All right. Now, the thing is, we're going to take calls for people to ask questions. That call-in number is 618-912-4681.

2:39:19You can also go to visitgothraud.com. The number is posted there. And my email is posted there. And you can use that to submit questions as well. But whoever calls, we're going to let them go first. They're paying their dime. We don't want them waiting on hold forever. So I would ask people also, if you're going to ask questions, be as succinct as possible. If we only can allow you to have one question, just get back online if you want to. Because if there are a number of people backed up behind you, Again, we want to move them and accommodate them as best as we can. So let's see now. Jim in Illinois, you'll let me know if we have any callers. But first of all, guys, do you want to make any opening statements?

2:40:02Otherwise, I've got kind of a generic question or two to get us going. Yeah, go ahead. We don't have any opening statements, really. I don't, anyway. Well, I might get a little basic and elemental here, but I don't know that's such a bad idea. I mean, the big aha for me was to realize that the story of our founding fathers was pretty much a fairy tale. And along with that goes the constitution. So just as a basic statement, let's start off with this. The constitution, is it for we, the little people, or was it for the framers? And I will take it from there. It was really for the framers. It wasn't for the little people. We had nothing to do with it.

2:40:46In fact, none of the original constitutions of the 13 original states was ever submitted to the people to be ratified. I have the original New Jersey document and I researched through the other documents when David Dodge was doing work and I had so much of it that he didn't have that I had to send him a lot of material. Right in the original constitution of New Jersey on the very first page at the very bottom, it says this document was not submitted to the people for ratification. So that means they were all corporations under the Virginia land company, which extended from Maine to Georgia.

2:41:31It didn't like people think when you say Virginia land company, they think of the state of Virginia right now as it existed. But back in those days, it went from Maine to Georgia. It was called the Virginia Land Company, which Washington was a chief surveyor for that land and he kept a lot of the land for the people and his friends in Europe that came over here and he kept that land and sold it to them.

2:42:11founding fathers were, well, as James could say, Washington didn't even want to get out of the system, and he wanted to remain a loyal subject of the King. Yeah, he stated that if he should ever be seen doing anything that would, for separation from England, that he would be marked up as everything evil, you know. But he would never do that. Of course, that was just like years before the 1776 Declaration, so things change quick.

2:42:51You know, the Constitution, all that was was a way for the aristocracy to incorporate and have a means to manage their affairs and have governmental protection. Just like the crown was where everything was centered for the king, so the king could not be sued. It was the same thing, basically. It was protection for the aristocracy that had formed in this country. All right. We're picking up static on one of your phones, I think. That any better? That's good. Yeah, thanks a lot. I don't know if you were finished with your statement, James. If you are, I'll ask another, but continue if you have. 1968, when it was printed.

2:43:38Would you just also give me the full title of the book you had just mentioned about ecclesiastical law? OK. It is Elements of Ecclesiastical Law by S. B. Smith, volume one. There's three volumes. And I'll read the cover page. The latest decisions of the sacred congregations of cardinals. adapted especially to the discipline of the church of the United in the United States.

2:44:16In other words, the United States is a church and this is the ninth edition and it's printed by the Benjinger brothers in New York, Cincinnati and Chicago and it was the printing for the Holy See 1893. You know, that's interesting, by the way, too, because, as I think I might have told you, we got some images that were reproduced from a newspaper at that time, probably around 1892, called The Patriotic American. It carried a papal bull from Leo.

2:44:58Yes, he did come over here and he chewed out the United States for not following his dictates. And I do have a copy of that paper, and I tried to scan it and put it on my computer. But you know, you can't scan a whole newspaper. No, it's true. In fact, I had to transpose the papal bull just so I could pass it around. But in that, he says, you know, I'm the vicar of Christ, and it all belongs to me. Right. And then he also warned heretics, which translated means anybody who wasn't Romanist, that this would be a good time for you to come into the fold or risk whatever happens to you for being. Heretical, very, very not spiritual type words, I'd say. No, no.

2:45:43And you know, the funny part, not really funny, but the part about it that people don't realize is the pope is a fraud. He is not the vicar of Christ because back in 79 AD, St. Linus was the first pope that self appointed himself after Peter as the vicar of Christ and it's been carried through so that they have so much power today that people still believe that there is a vicar of Christ and it is not.

2:46:25So that alone would destroy once it is put in people's mind that there is no Pontiff, there is no Pope who is a vicar of Christ. Right now, to sort things out, I did get a question with regard to the Magna Carta from a listener over in the UK. You kind of already addressed that without knowing it, so we'll let that one go. I do want to return to the illegitimacy of the Constitution as well. But really, when it comes down to it, even as far back as, I guess, what we're talking about is the 13th century, Yes. The Vatican had extended its strength.

2:47:07Now here's one question I want to ask you, at how best you understand this. It seemed to me, although the Vatican was strong at times, and at other times kind of on the run, and we had the dual papacy there for a while, one in France, but it would seem to me that right around the 1820s, when the Treaty of Orona came out, it was on the back of the fact that the Jesuits had already wrested control from whatever power sources were there, perhaps the Pope, and that from that point on, the Jesuits pretty much ran the show from behind the Vatican doors. Right. That was 1541 when De Loyola became the first black pope because he was actually the police of the Vatican. Yeah, the enforcement arm of the Vatican. Right.

2:47:54Now, so I'm assuming, and maybe I'm wrong, but around the Treaty of Verona, again, I think it was 1822, it seems from that point on, though that there was some infighting going on between the Jesuits and others, that from that period on, it was solidified, it was done, and they only grew stronger. Right. If they continued on, too, just to interject, what was done during that treaty, I mean, it was just huge, the involvement of the Jesuits and other states, not only Papal states, but it was their aim to destroy any democracy. They considered that an enemy. If you need to. No, that was good. Go ahead. All right.

2:48:37Well now, then what is the purpose of writing the Constitution? What did it achieve and for whom did it achieve it? Well, what it did was you got to remember all of the Virginia land company was owned by the Brown banks and the King was the front man because of the treaty that he made with the Pope in April 21st of 1214 when it was actually signed.

2:49:14And so it was, as James said, a corporation because when I was doing some work not too, well, for a while ago, And there's a case called res res public versus swears. And it's one Dallas, uh, 1830. It was a 1779 Supreme court decision. And in the five pages of, of that decision in the very beginning, It says that the United States, from its inception, was a corporation.

2:50:03So that's why the corporation, everybody thinks it's a British corporation, because everything in the Virginia Land Company was British. But going back to the 1214, is when the Pope turned everything, the entire British Empire, in all the subjects over to the Pope, the Vatican. I have the book, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, and if anybody can get that book, there are three volumes.

2:50:48It's page 52, 53, 54, and 254 and 255 in the beginning. And it comes right out and it says that the Pope rules this entire country. And while I'm trying to find that page, in the book. You know, the Pope's involvement all over again back in 1213, the charter of 1213. Anyone out there is familiar with that. This information is not taught in schools, but it does exist.

2:51:31It's nothing that was created by us. And this is where King John had been admonished by the Pope for his actions involving his clergy that the Pope excommunicated King John in order to receive the blessing again from the Pope because his people were open arms because you have to understand the power that the Catholic Church had over not only kings but the people of the nation in regards to their relationship with God Almighty. When all that took place, In order to get in the good graces of the pope again, the king had to cede over everything that he held title to him.

2:52:22You've got to keep in mind, he held everything in a loyal, absolute ownership. And he ceded those properties and people, everything that he owned, over to the pope. And then that land and the holdings of the king were ceded back to him as a lesser title. to oversee for the Pope. And this occurred in 1203, did you say? Yes, 1213 of Magna Carta took place. And I actually have letters in my book that were communications between King John and the Pope in regards to setting up this arrangement where this was to be done. And so two years later, it's when you had the Magna Carta.

2:53:07always heard for years and years of the Patriots and this nation give lip service to the Magna Carta when they don't realize the whole story. As to what took place just a few months after the Magna Carta had been written and the Ings were an oath to the Barons and signed a document that in August 24th of that same year the Pope gold that they made in the car