Interview with 'The Informer'

[netwrkranger]

He covers A LOT of subjects in short time.

All comments and critiques welcome.

http://www.vyzygoth.com/audio.html

- netwrkranger

[Sapiens]

Thanks for the link. Odd how things we think we know are not true huh?

[netwrkranger]

The Informer is something else.

He got me hip to Benedict's on Admiralty. I've found the version he mentions in the broadcast by way of Google Books.

I will definitely have to look into his research more.

You are right. It is amazing what we believe that turns out not to be so.

- netwrkranger

[dorkenbutt]

Very good interview. The Informer says it like it is. People should take heed to what he is saying and do the research.

[rottweiler]

The informer has given me some dots for the big picture but his application of law to it leads to a confused reality.

He criticises the common law even though he doesn't quite know what it is. How do I know that?

He talks about the Magna Carta being a dead letter because King John was under duress when he signed it. The Informers had me believing that too and I'll tell you it was a big mistake. He leaves out the crucial aspect of inalienable rights. If what he says is true the Founding Fathers never had a right to independence because they were British subjects and everything belongs to the Pope. Preposterous.

Having said that I still read him when I can because he does bring some good evidence, but just don't let him draw any conclusions for you.

[rottweiler]

I was listening to that recording for the second time to see if I can glean something else and I sure did. The Informer mentions how the people of England hated the King's common law. I am telling you that is no different then today in America. It's the same old ignorance rearing it's ugly head except it's the United States common law they hate here.

I saw it on the nullification thread. I explained what was up and how to defeat it and what I saw astounded me. It was if I was on everyone's ignore list and they just continued with their original opinions without skipping a beat.

Let's say someone is being prosecuted for failure to file tax returns. The government, like the King of old, is pretending to be sovereign and the target does not see what is going on. My experience is they don't want to know. It's as if they are zombies.

I used to be impressed by these internet gurus like Irwin Schiff and the Informer. I was wrong, they are just a bunch a stubborn **** heads.

[rottweiler]

Even the mighty William Penn didn't know what the hell was going on with the King's common law. Damn, the more I learn, the lonelier I am getting.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

I saw it on the nullification thread. I explained what was up and how to defeat it and what I saw astounded me. It was if I was on everyone's ignore list and they just continued with their original opinions without skipping a beat.

one thing is original jurisdiction and another is subsequent issues within that law. Like you said on the nullification thread, the defendant never objected to jurisdiction so the jury couldn't rule on that issue. So if you pointed out the remedy by your own analysis this was irrelevant in that case.

However, I disagree there- the presumption of innocence should include an automatic test of jurisdiction. Why should anyone have to answer anything, when the burden of proof is on the moving party?

Which may tie right in to the question asserted in every indictment- if the plaintiff's case itself fails to show 'interference with commerce', or 'disturbing the peace and dignity', where was the jurisdiction in the first place?

The state may be implicitly claiming proper standing but the jury needs proper instructions on how to figure this determination, being composed mostly of idiots and morons. Of course no one bothers to even read the indictment, people just pass judgment on whatever images float through their minds, mostly "as seen on TV". The libertarians get it just as wrong there as anyone else.

[netwrkranger]

The book that mentions that the common man hated the Common Law is History of the American Bar by Charles Warren. I'm certain the Common Law was radically changed by William the Conquerer (or the Bastard depending on your perspective). William brought more highly centralized government to the fairly decentralized governmental administration of England.

Slight side note, I had thought that the House of Commons was the parliament for the common man, but that belief was in error. The House of Commons was the parliament of lower level government officials, not the common man.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=mMKTNX...eature=related