The Informer Documents

Writings by the Informer

 

 

BANKING

Gold and How it is Manipulated

Think #15 -IRS/Trust Codes

Redeem

IS THIS WHAT MAKES YOU SUBJECT TO INCOME TAX?

Use and Transfer

Hamilton's True Identity

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

BAIT AND SWITCH

America's Real History Not Taught

UCC DEFINITIONS

  JURY TRIALS A MYTH

Jurisdiction Over a National

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
 

WHO WANTS TO TAKE AN OATH?

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

Volume I - pages 232-237

Volume III - pages 6-9

Volume III - pages 10-13

Volume III - pages 96-97

Volume III - pages 102-106

Volume III - pages 141-146

Volume III - pages 155-157

Volume III - pages 268-269

Volume III - pages 291-309

Volume III - Pages 399-404

Volume III - pages 411-413

Volume III - Pages 459-461

Last of the Geneva Papers

Common man never created the constitution

Citizen= Subject

Fiction of law

The myth of the term Law of the Land

Perspectives

Definitions that enslave you

State, United States. Includes
This is not conjecture, this is not myth, etc
 

PHONE TAX

COMMON SENSE

 HISTORY of the BRITISH SUBJECTS

A paradox for any court

IF YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS PROTESTING GOVERNMENT

SO YOU REALLY WANT A REPUBLIC?

Are You a Corporation Member

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

Think #13-Penalty Statutes

Going after the wrong people

How you are controlled by private corporations
Merry Go Round

The beginning of the big lie

Reality

Are you a member of a community?

Flawed redemption process

Regroup to find the truth

Documents 

TAXES

Sometimes Criminals Speak Truth

THE 1913 INCOME TAX FRAUD
WHAT DOES FEDERAL REALLY MEAN

Assessment Authority

26 USC 6331 Authorizing IRS

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

Treasury Letter of 1866

TERMS not WORDS

SS# and TIN IS NOT THE SAME

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

Excise taxes Person and Taxes

Excise Taxes

1998 List of IRS sections affected
Person

Person Pollock v Farmers Loan and Trust

Scumbags

 

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?


It has been said by many a patriot that they will not take an oath in court as that is forbidden in
the Bible at Matthew 5 : 33-34

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 I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst make one hair white or black.
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
The words of Jesus Christ, Matthew 5:33-37.

"But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by
any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." James 5:12

How often does the US government require an oath of its subjects ?
When invoking it you are telling the court all others have sworn to tell a lie and you cannot do that.

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
                        2. To deny upon oath   
                            like innocence, and as serenely bold
                           As truth, how loudly he forswears they God.

To forswear one's self , is to swear falsely; to perjure one's self

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
Zechariah says this; "By cursing, and lying, and killing", &c., "

           "Alah" means to swear: some explain it in this place as signifying to
            forswear; and others read the two together, "'aloh wechachesh", to
            swear and lie, that is to deceive by swearing. But as "'alah" means
            often to curse, the Prophet here, I doubt not, condemns the practice
            of cursing, which was become frequent and common among the people.

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.
Perjureper and jureto swear; that is, to swear aside or beyond. (Note, you are swearing beyond what you have already said when, "you shall state the truth , the whole truth" in whatever you say 1 min , 10 min or a day later. And you are closing the statement asking God for help.)

[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?]

Willfully to make a false oath when administered by lawful authority (note it does not say legally) or in a court of justice; to foreswear; as ,the witness perjured himself.

Perjury. n. The act of crime of willfully making a false oath, when lawfully administered; nor a crime committed when a lawful oath is administered in some judicial proceeding, to a person who swears willfully, absolutely, in a matter material to the issue.

Ok now is the oath legal or lawful? Is the court a judicial or administrative court? Was it lawfully or legally administered? There is a big difference. See no man shall know the truth because you can't truthfully answer even these questions)

When the court says to take an oath before you ever say anything it is -- To forswear one's self , is to swear falsely; to perjure one's self, see above under perjure.
As to the jurat (perjury statement on forms) how can you know whether they are using terms or words on the form? People cannot. And , when they sign the form they automatically perjure themselves because terms are used, which make what appear to be common words actually something entirely different when they are terms. Ergo you must have lied in the fact you said something and they said something entirely different. They now perceive you lied and there is nothing you can do because you signed under penalties of perjury, see perjury above.

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
Think of this, Pilate had no quarrel with Jesus. He correctly saw the charge as a political matter, devoid of any real criminal act. Likely, Pilate offered Jesus the "protection of Rome." Roman law extended only to sworn subjects. All Jesus would need do is swear an oath to Caesar, then Pilate could protect him. Otherwise, Jesus was probably going to turn up dead at the hands of "person or persons unknown" which would really be at the hands of the civil government, under the false
charge of sedition. Pilate administered that oath to Caesar. Jesus stood mute, again refusing
jurisdiction. Pilate "marveled at that." He'd never before met a man who preferred to live free or die. Under Roman law the unsworn were considered to be unclean - the "great unwashed masses." The elite were sworn to Caesar. When an official errantly extended the law to an unsworn person that "failure of jurisdiction" required that the official perform a symbolic act. To cleanse himself and the law, he would "wash his hands." Pilate did so. Under Roman law, the law to which he was sworn, he had to do so.

The law, neither Roman law nor the law of Israel, could obtain jurisdiction over Jesus. The law
couldn't kill Him, nor could it prevent that murder. Jesus was turned over to a mob, demanding His death. How's that for chaos? Jesus was put to death because He refused to be sworn. But the law couldn't do that. Only a mob could do so, setting free a true felon in the process. Thus, Jesus proved the one failing of the law - at least the law then and there - the law has no ability to touch a truly freeman. A mob can, but the result of that is chaos, not order.

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
August 2004

 

WAS WASHINGTON, D.C. A STATE THEN? IS WASHINGTON, D.C. A STATE NOW?

The Informer

WAS WASHINGTON, D.C. A STATE THEN?
IS WASHINGTON, D.C. A STATE NOW?

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 depends on the act of Congress describing the jurisdiction of that court. That act gives jurisdiction to the circuit courts in cases between a citizen of the state in which the suit is brought, and a citizen of another state. To support the jurisdiction in this case, therefore, it must appear that Columbia is a state.
     On the part of the plaintiffs it has been argued that Columbia is a distinct political society; and is, therefore, "a state" according to the definitions of writers on general law.

     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.
     The House of Representatives is to be composed of members chosen by the people of the several states; and each state shall have at least one representative.
     The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state.
     Each state shall appoint, for the election of the executive, a number of electors equal to its whole number of senators and representatives. These clauses show that the word state is used in the Constitution as designating a member of the union, and excludes *from the term [*453] the signification attached to it by writers on the law of nations. When the same term which has been used plainly in this limited sense in the articles respecting the legislative and executive departments, is also employed in that which respects the judicial department, it must be understood as retaining the sense originally given to it.
     Other passages from the Constitution have been cited by the plaintiffs to show that the term state is sometimes used in its more enlarged sense. But on examining the passages quoted, they do not prove what was to be shown by them.
     It is true that as citizens of the United States, and of that particular district which is subject to the Jurisdiction of Congress, it is extraordinary that the courts of the United States, which are open to aliens, and to the citizens of every state in the union, should be closed upon them. But this is a subject for legislative, not for judicial consideration.
     The opinion to be certified to the circuit court is, that that court has no jurisdiction in the case.

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 term "state court" when used in these Rules includes the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. See 28 U.S.C. Sections 1257 and 1258. References to these Rules to the common law and statutes of a State include the common law and statutes of the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico."

Now, let's dissect this to see what state they are talking about. Right off the bat there is that word "term". Those of you that read the article I wrote on TERM will understand immediately that this "term" "state court" is specific to the words employed in this Rule. Next, notice that the word "includes" appears, meaning state court is confined, shut in, not to go outside those words District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Puerto Rico court. It does not mean any state of the union courts or the federal courts in those states. Here is more deceit and lies that entrap you by the use of special definitions Congress or the courts wrote. The example is found in the definitions specifically defined by Congress at 26 U.S.C. 7701 (a) where in every definition is preceded by the word "TERM". Term is a word of art as discussed in the TERMS article as it is not a standard word definition we are all so used to using.

The Informer 3-10-03

\

 

Subcategories

Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States - 1930

Page 5 of 60