The Informer Documents
Writings by the Informer
BANKING
Gold and How it is Manipulated
IS THIS WHAT MAKES YOU SUBJECT TO INCOME TAX?
So You Think the U.S. Still Has a Treasury
The Entire Patriot Community is Deficient in Knowledge
GOVERNMENT
HISTORY Not Now Taught in Public Schools The Cover Up of the Truth
What the Pope thought about his corporation in 1891
The Vatican Controls America and YOU
Cannon law in America Applies to all Citizens
America's Real History Not Taught
Government Fraud A Short Synopsis
CITIZENSHIP BY TREATY
The Bill of Rights Fraud Part two
WHY DOES THE STATE HAVE JURISDICTION OVER ME?
The Bill of Rights Fraud Part I
JURISDICTION & THE FIRST JUDICIARY ACT
WAS WASHINGTON, D.C. A STATE THEN? IS WASHINGTON, D.C. A STATE NOW?
OATHS OF OFFICE
1868 Inaugural Speech of Governor Worth
When was State Sovereignty Lost?
The Informer Addendum
Congress has no jurisdiction to levy an income tax
Congress ultimate administrator of the courts
AN END TO THE DEBATE ON THE 16TH?
WOW- The real 1930 Geneva Convention Books
Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States - 1930
Common man never created the constitution
The myth of the term Law of the Land
State, United States. Includes
This is not conjecture, this is not myth, etc
PHONE TAX
COMMON SENSE
HISTORY of the BRITISH SUBJECTS
IF YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS PROTESTING GOVERNMENT
SO YOU REALLY WANT A REPUBLIC?
How the government got you in its clutches, slave
YOU WANTED TO BE A CITIZEN - SO WHY COMPLAIN?
Black's Law Dictionary is a "Specialty" Dictionary
How you are controlled by private corporations
Merry Go Round
Are you a member of a community?
TAXES
Sometimes Criminals Speak Truth
THE 1913 INCOME TAX FRAUD
WHAT DOES FEDERAL REALLY MEAN
True Nature of Withholding Tax 1942 Revenue Act
What To Present Administratively That You Have No Income
Why All States Depend on Federal Determination to Tax You
The why's and wherefore's of the tax system
Tax Series #8-IRS not authorized to file Fed Tax Liens
Tax Series #9-Security and Money
1998 List of IRS sections affected
Person
Person Pollock v Farmers Loan and Trust
WAR/EMERGENCY POWERS
The genesis of the emergency / war powers ACT
War Powers in America today
The question is why?
SOCIAL SECURITY
Congress is the Beneficiary of the SS
When is a Social Security Number not a Social Security Number AND Will the real Beneficiary please stand up
The Liability Statute Imposing the SS Tax
The History of the American Bar
The Bar in America - Part I
Introductory - Law Without Lawyers - Part II
Lawyers in the Seventeenth Century - Part III
The Colonial Bar of Virginia and Maryland - Chapter II
Colonial Massachusetts Bar -Chapter III
Colonial New York, Pennsylvania & New Jersy Bar - Chapter IV
Colonial Southern Bar - Chapter V
New England Colonial Bar - Chapter VI
The Law & Lawyers in England in the Eighteenth Century-Chapter VII
Early American Barristers, & Bar Associations - Chapter IX
Part II - Federal Bar -Chapter X
The Federal Bar and Law, 1789-1815-Chapter XI
The Federal Bar & the Law, 1815-1830-Chapter XV
The Federal Bar & Law - 1830-1860 - Chapter XVI
The Progress of the Law - 1830-1860 - Chapter XVII
The Rise of Railroad & Corporation Law - Chapter XVIII
Admiralty
Addendum to "The New History of America"
Padleford Case & Standing
Admiralty Rules
Admiralty in Tax Cases
WHO WANTS TO TAKE AN OATH?
The Informer
WHO WANTS TO TAKE AN OATH?
That would be swearing before you say what you have to say . Here is something that no one to my recollection has ever brought forth so people can see just what it means when everyone else gets on the stand, puts hand on the bible or just raised the right hand and says he will tell the truth , the whole truth , so help me God. So they are going against what the Lord said not to do. So that forswearing was always on my mind and since I could find no one that ever brought up just what forswearing is , I decided to go to Webster's 1828 Dictionary and see what the definition was. What a revelation that could be used in any court to stifle those that will forswear and is just as great as Matthew 5: 33-34 when you invoke it. "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shall perform unto the Lord thine oaths: "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by How often does the US government require an oath of its subjects ? Here is what Webster's has to say and you can work it in any way you want when in court. You all know the courts have said people can lie, right? Well here is why and ask yourself why hasn't anyone brought this up before. Page 87 Vol 1 Webster's 1828 American Dictionary FORSWEAR. 1. To reject or renounce upon oath FORSWEAR. v. i. To swear falsely; to commit perjury FORSWEARER, n. One who rejects on oath; one who is perjured; one that swears a false oath. FORSWEARING, ppr. Denying on oath; swearing falsely. FORSWORN. Pp of forswear. Renounced on oath; perjured. So when you are asked to forswear as is everyone else, then you are in effect stating that what ever you say will be a lie and not the truth. Read it above and think what I just said and this is in conformance to what the courts have said about any official can lie because they forswore did they not? Here from Hosea is this about forswearing and what it really means, translated from the original Latin by the Rev. John Owen,vicar of Thrussington, Leicestershire 1846 Volume First, Hosea--Wm. M. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1950, Michigan. Printed in the United States of America "Alah" means to swear: some explain it in this place as signifying to So it is that when the courts want one to forswear they are really saying that you shall lie and swear to it. I believe the Lord said "no man shall know the truth", so how can anyone swear to tell the truth when he knows not the truth? Now another paradox shows up in penalty statements on government forms and that is a perjury statement. So we go to Webster's 1828 Dictionary again to see just what perjury is. [Now God is your witness that you are telling the truth? Pray tell, if there is a dispute don't I have the right to bring the witness forward and put that witness on the stand to verify I was telling the truth? Why is it that no man yet has invoked this fact of law to put God on the stand to tell them he is telling the truth? Why not, they made you take an oath right? They set the stage for bringing your witness to the stand to testify you are telling the truth by raising your right hand and lying (forswearing) that you will tell the truth. They can't deny that fact now can they?] The current Internal Revenue Code is about as close to legislated chaos as could ever be envisioned. No two people beginning with identical premises will reach the same conclusion under the IRC. Is not that chaos? Thus, in every instance where the government attempts to use oaths to bind a people, the result has been chaos. So who is telling the truth, you or the government drone? Who wrote the statute in such a way that only they know terms, while the even educated man knows not of terms. So only the ones knowing terms are telling the truth as to terms, BUT in reality the fraud of it all they are telling a lie and swearing an oath to tell a lie. Think about that last sentence real hard and you will see even though they are telling the truth on one hand they are lying on the other hand. If only 2% of the American people understand what is written here, income taxation will be abolished - that out of a fear that the knowledge will expand. The government will be scared silly. What if no one in the next generation would swear an oath? Then there would be no servants! This is an excerpt from E. Simmons The law, neither Roman law nor the law of Israel, could obtain jurisdiction over Jesus. The law In every situation where a government attempts to compel an oath, or fails to protect a man of conscience who refuses it, the result is chaos. That government proves itself incapable of any claimed powers as the result, for the only purpose of any government should be to defend the people establishing it - all of those people - and not because they owe that government any duty or allegiance, but for the opposite reason, because the government owes the people its duty and allegiance under the law. This nation came close to that concept for quite a few decades. Then those in federal office realized that they could fool all of the people, some of the time. That "some of the time" regarded oaths and jurisdiction. We were (and still are) a Christian nation, at least the vast majority of us claim ourselves to be Christian. But we are led by churchmen who still uphold the terms of that European treaty. They still profess that it is Christian to swear an oath, so long as it's a "lawful oath." We are deceived. As deceived as the tenant in 1300, but more so, for we now have the Words of Jesus to read for ourselves. The Informer |
WAS WASHINGTON, D.C. A STATE THEN? IS WASHINGTON, D.C. A STATE NOW?
The Informer
WAS WASHINGTON, D.C. A STATE THEN? Hepburn and Dundas v Ellzey, 2 Cranch 445 Marshall, Ch. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The question in this case, is, whether the plaintiffs, as residents of the District of Columbia, can maintain action in the circuit court of the United States for the District of Virginia. This is true. But as the act of Congress obviously uses the word "state" in reference to that term as used in the Constitution, it becomes necessary to inquire whether Columbia is a state in the sense of that instrument. The result of that examination is a conviction that the members of the American Confederacy only are the states contemplated in the Constitution. Now, using this case you can see where the United States officers cannot go into the states and press charges because Congress does not have jurisdiction over people not their subjects, just like California cannot send its officers into Pennsy to apply one of its statutes to a man living in Pennsy. However this is a case that was before the Civil War. The Civil War was a takeover of all states by the federal criminals. Now, based on 12 Stat. 319, the federal government can, by conquest, go into the states with their courts and rule over us. I refer you to the US Supreme Court Rule 47 to see what they say now. Rule 47. Term "State Court: The Informer 3-10-03 |
\
Subcategories
Banking Article Count: 8
Government Article Count: 46
Geneva Convention Article Count: 14
Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States - 1930
Phone Tax Article Count: 2
COMMON SENSE Article Count: 18
Taxes Article Count: 20
WAR/EMERGENCY POWERS Article Count: 3
Social Security Article Count: 3
The History of the American Bar Article Count: 16
Admiralty Article Count: 4
Page 5 of 60