Clarification of a matter FOR THE RECORD

http://journalgazette.com/article/20110327/LOCAL0201/303279925/1037/LOCAL02


The above article was blogged and I posted our response letter. We must address every article that seeks to damage us.






April 7, 2011


Attn: Mr. Frank Gray


Fax at 461-8893


Email: fgray@jg.net.




Dear: Mr. Frank Gray
Re: Odd twist: ‘Please, sir, can I be a Moor?’
This letter is to provide clarity in your article entitled. You indicated your concept of what happens at a government recorders office needed clarity so first let’s define what a government recorders office is. Webster’s Dictionary defines a government recorders office as follows: “The county office where instruments are recorded, giving public notice”. Webster’s Dictionary defines public notice as follows “An announcement made through newspaper, radio, community poster, internet blog, or other public means.” Government recording offices, as far as I’m concerned, are the most interesting places because they handle the information that deals with the public. Anytime notice is given to the public it can be done by putting it on record. This office is also used in addition to purposes named in your article, to file for business licenses and Permits. The beginnings of the Moorish Empire began when the 7 continents were connected in a “Super continent” completely connected in what modern day “historians” call Pangaea. Moors refer to this “Super continent” as Amexem. The people existing at this time were the original and indigenous inhabitants of this planet, of all regions and hemispheres. There was a giant earthquake thousands of years ago that created what we know as the Atlantic Ocean and separated “America” from “Africa”. I quote these titles due to the fact that modern Anglo names have been given to brand the land as well as brands on the indigenous people. These indigenous people are the same people that are found in modern day Morocco, Tunis and Tripoli. This is because again at one time these two land masses were conjoined. North America is described further as Northwest Amexum.


The people of these lands fell victim to European colonialism, branding and involuntary slavery, to this day and the history of an entire people has been stolen and distorted based on hatred. This treatment continues to this current day. Some of the brands that have been given to these people are Negro, black, colored, African, African American, Native American, Indian, etc. The main brand used today to classify these people is black. Black is a federal directive15 classification that has nothing to do with anthropology and is also defined as a color and in English it is known as an Adjective. We learn in the 3rd grade the differences between a proper noun and an adjective. How can an adjective be a person? This is done through branding. A brand is defined as the identity of a specific product, service, or business. (Webster’s). These people were given these brands and treated as property by English immigrants to America that later arrived from Europe. This treatment still exists to this day. Beyond the branding, these people have a stolen history of an entire people that were documented on this planet hundreds of thousands of years before 1492. Now let’s discuss the issue of taxes. By Law every United States Citizen must pay taxes. Every Dual Citizen is treated as a United States Citizen and required to pay taxes by law. Citizens of other Nations will not pay United States taxes but will pay taxes to their respective country. For instance Citizens of China would not pay United States Taxes. They would pay taxes in China.


There are no people immune from anything because regardless of ones status. One can still be arrested and thrown in jail without any regard to laws or the Constitution. (Rosa Parks)(Martin Luther King Jr.)


I am not able to comment on any of your examples for 3 reasons:


1. I am sure there have been many people that have all kinds of schemes. Schemes have nothing to do with Moorish Americans.


2. I am not able to comment on your source about Confidential Information in ones bank account. That would be against the law. Ones’ bank account is considered Confidential Information.


3. I am not able to speak on hypothetical situations that I am ignorant of. I am only given some information and it would be impossible to comment having been only given selected info.


You went on to say: "None of the documents carries any legal weight. You have to go to court to change your name. That’s the law. You can renounce your citizenship, I suppose, but that doesn’t give you immunity from the law or taxes."


86 F.3d 1159MOORISH SCIENCE TEMPLE of AMERICA, Inc.; Frank Applewhite; Curtis Owen, Appellants, v. Dennis BENSON, Warden; Steve Hokonson, Chaplain, Appellees. No. 95-2549. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted May 20, 1996. Filed May 29, 1996.


I. Name-change policy


3. The Moors claimed defendants violated their rights under the First Amendment and Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb to 2000bb-4, by refusing to allow inmates to append the suffix El or Bey to their names unless an inmate legally changes his name pursuant to Minnesota statutory procedure. The Moors alleged that their religion dictates the use of the suffixes and forbids them from going to court to change their names accordingly. They sought injunctive relief, requesting only that they not be punished for signing their name with the El or Bey suffix in conjunction with their prison number without first obtaining a legal name change. Along with an affidavit detailing their religious tenets regarding the use of the El or Bey suffix, the Moors submitted documentation from the national MSTA, which stated:


4. A member is not to go into court to have a name change, because you are not changing your name. You are proclaiming something you always have been by being born a Moorish American. One is not to change any existing records, but do all new business in the name of El or Bey, and put your nationality down or make it known, when and where it is called for.


III. Conclusion


14 With respect to the Moors' claims regarding the name-change policy, we affirm as to Hokonson and reverse and remand as to Benson.


http://openjurist.org/86/f3d/1159/moorish-science-temple-america-v-...


You noted and we agree. "You can renounce your citizenship, I suppose, but that doesn’t give you immunity from the law or taxes." "Exactly why people are recording these documents isn’t clear." "None of the documents carries any legal weight."


Accordingly, at least since the Supreme Court's ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), it is no longer constitutionally sufficient that a person who was born or naturalized in the United States has voluntarily engaged in conduct deemed by law to be an act of expatriation. The person must also undertake such an act with the specific intention to relinquish his U.S. citizenship. See Terrazas, 444 U.S. at 263 (requiring that "the expatriating act [be] accompanied by an intent to terminate United States citizenship"). "[B]ecause of the precious nature of citizenship, it can be relinquished only voluntarily, and not by legislative fiat." Jolley v. INS, 441 F.2d 1245, 1248 (5th Cir. 1971). It is very clear that the County Clerk Office files various types of dissolutions real estate records, estate records, baptismal records, birth records, recording property transfers and pursuant to United States Code Title 8 Chapter 12 Subchapter I § 1101 subsection (7) The term “clerk of court” means a clerk of a naturalization court..


When the first Naturalization Act of 1790 came out an immigrant could file a Petition for Naturalization with "any common law court of record" having jurisdiction over his residence asking to be naturalized. Once convinced of the applicant’s good moral character, the court would administer an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution of the United States. The clerk of court was to make a record of these proceedings, and "thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States." Thus the Clerks of Court traditionally delt with proceedings pertaining to Nationalization, Naturalization and Nationality. It is well established in Smith v. Erickson the clerk is considered the functional equivalent of the judge; by the same token, in this case the office of the Clerk should be treated as the Court itself See, e.g. , Smith v. Erickson , 884 F.2d 1108, 1111 (8th Cir. 1989).


According to the United States Constitution Article IV -Section 1, United States Code Title 28 Part V Chapter 115 § 1738, United States Code Title 28 Part V Chapter 131 § 2074, and Federal Rules Of Evidence Rule 803 and 902. (11) Records of religious organizations. Statements of births, marriages, divorces, deaths, legitimacy, ancestry, relationship by blood or marriage, or other similar facts of personal or family history, contained in a regularly kept record of a religious organization. (12) Marriage, baptismal, and similar certificates. Statements of fact contained in a certificate that the maker performed a marriage or other ceremony or administered a sacrament, made by a clergyman, public official, or other person authorized by the rules or practices of a religious organization or by law to perform the act certified, and purporting to have been issued at the time of the act or within a reasonable time thereafter. (13) Family records. Statements of fact concerning personal or family history contained in family Bibles, genealogies, charts, engravings on rings, inscriptions on family portraits, engravings on urns, crypts, or tombstones, or the like. (14) Records of documents affecting an interest in property.


The record of a document purporting to establish or affect an interest in property, as proof of the content of the original recorded document and its execution and delivery by each person by whom it purports to have been executed, if the record is a record of a public office and an applicable statute authorizes the recording of documents of that kind in that office. (15) Statements in documents affecting an interest in property. A statement contained in a document purporting to establish or affect an interest in property if the matter stated was relevant to the purpose of the document, unless dealings with the property since the document was made have been inconsistent with the truth of the statement or the purport of the document. (16) Statements in ancient documents. Statements in a document in existence twenty years or more the authenticity of which is established. Those types of documents are due full faith and credit.


"To back up that argument, some of the documents make reference to the 1857 Dred Scott decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that no descendant of a slave could be a citizen of the United States."


Citing Dread Scott.


1. The facts upon which the plaintiff relies did not give him his freedom and make him a citizen of Missouri.


2. The clause in the Constitution authorizing Congress to make all needful rules and regulations for the government of the territory and other property of the United States applies only to territory within the chartered limits of some one of the States when they were colonies of Great Britain, and which was surrendered by the British Government to the old Confederation of the States in the treaty of peace. It does not apply to territory acquired by the present Federal Government by treaty or conquest from a foreign nation.


1. The territory thus acquired is acquired by the people of the United States for their common and equal benefit through their agent and trustee, the Federal Government. Congress can exercise no power over the rights of persons or property of a citizen in the Territory which is prohibited by the Constitution. The Government and the citizen, whenever the Territory is open to settlement, both enter it with their respective rights defined and limited by the Constitution.


2. Congress have no right to prohibit the citizens of any particular State or States from taking up their home there while it permits citizens of other States to do so. Nor has it a right to give privileges to one class of citizens which it refuses to another. The territory is acquired for their equal and common benefit, and if open to any, it must be open to all upon equal and the same terms.


3. Every citizen has a right to take with him into the Territory any article of property which the Constitution of the United States recognises as property.


4. The Constitution of the United States recognises slaves as property, and pledges the Federal Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of that description than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind.


5. The act of Congress, therefore, prohibiting a citizen of the United States from [p396] taking with him his slaves when he removes to the Territory in question to reside is an exercise of authority over private property which is not warranted by the Constitution, and the removal of the plaintiff by his owner to that Territory gave him no title to freedom.


The question is simply this: can a negro whose ancestors were imported into this country and sold as slaves become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen, one of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution?


It will be observed that the plea applies to that class of persons only whose ancestors were negroes of the African race, and imported into this country and sold and held as slaves. The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State in the sense in which the word "citizen" is used in the Constitution of the United States. And this being the only matter in dispute on the pleadings, the court must be understood as speaking in this opinion of that class only, that is, of those persons who are the descendants of Africans who were imported into this country and sold as slaves.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_Z...






A handful of people have been recording lengthy documents written in flowery, obfuscated language, proclaiming they are Moorish Americans. The Moorish empire, some of the documents claim, originated in northwest Africa and extended across the continent of Atlantis and into North, Central and South America long before anyone else was on the continent."Well this is because under their ecclesiastical doctrine: The Holy Koran of The Moorish Science Temple of America Divinely Prepared By The Noble Prophet Drew Ali Chapter Xlvii Egypt, The Capital Empire Of The Dominion Of Africa Records:
1. The inhabitants of Africa are the descendants of the ancient Canaanites from the land of Canaan.
2. Old man Cush and his family are the first inhabitants of Africa who came from the land of Canaan.
3. His father Ham and his family were second. Then came the word Ethiopia, which means the demarcation line of the dominion of Amexem, the first true and divine name of Africa. The dividing of the land between the father and the son.
4. The dominion of Cush, North-East and South-East Africa and North-West and South-West was his father's dominion of Africa.
5. In later years many of their brethren from Asia and the Holy Lands joined them.
6. The Moabites from the land of Moab who received permission from the Pharaohs of Egypt to settle and inhabit North-West Africa; they were the founders and are the true possessors of the present Moroccan Empire. With their Canaanite, Hittite, and Amorite brethren who sojourned from the land of Canaan seeking new homes.
7. Their dominion and in-habitation extended from North-East and South-West Africa, across great Atlantis even unto the present North, South, and Central America and also Mexico and the Atlantis Islands; before the great earthquake, which caused the great Atlantic Ocean.


In closing I will say that, the Moors proclaiming themselves as Moorish American is simply one going on record to say that regardless of what anyone may have said or done to degrade a people’s history. That in fact we have a history also. And the history proceeded the year 1492. And that history was on this same land. The proclaiming of ones Nationality is a fundamental right afforded by the creator and the constitution. Filing such documents on record is to only inform the public. Whether on record or not we are Moorish Americans by consanguine relationship, We trace our roots back to the Ab-Original indigenous Inhabitants of this planet. I hope that this post gives you clarity; you had indicated that you were unclear of exactly what these documents were and what they were for. If you have questions and need further clarity please ask. Attached is the legalities behind everything stated in this letter. This information was gathered from the United States Constitution which dates back to the 1700s. In fact most of our laws today also trace back hundreds of years. So to provide further clarity, if the constitution was written in the 1700s and it is still legally in effect, a treaty that was crafted more modern than the constitution would also still be in effect. The United States Constitution applies to Foreign nationals, the Several States and Indian Tribes under the 1st Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act we have the right to believes all of the above.


El & Bey’s of the


Moorish American Party