THE MOORISH NATIONAL REPUBLIC FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NORTHWEST AFRICA.
THE MOORISH DIVINE AND NATIONAL MOVEMENT OF THE WORLD.
Northwest Amexem / Northwest Africa / North America.
‘The North Gate’.
Societas Republicae Ea Al Maurikanos.
Aboriginal and Indigenous Natural Peoples of the Land.
The true and de jure Al Moroccans / Americans.
Moors remain silent as “Our Writs Preceed Us – We Stand Mute”
Moorish Americans Say Squatter was ‘Kidnapped’
- ABC 24 Confronts Woman Living Illegally in Mansion
- East Memphis Squatter ‘Objects’ to Judge
- Child Welfare Concern Led to Squatter Arrest
Reported by: Joy Lambert
Published: 3/13 5:44 pm
Updated: 3/13 7:10 pm
MEMPHIS, TN (abc24.com) – They’re appealing to a government they don’t believe in, asking that their Moorish American sister be set free. Tabitha Gentry, also known as Abka Re Bey, was arrested last week after breaking into a $3 million east Memphis mansion. A bank owns the foreclosed home, but Gentry claimed it as her own.
Now the Moorish National Republic is bombarding everyone from First Lady Michelle Obama, to Shelby County Sheriff’s deputies with emails. They claim Gentry’s arrest was “kidnapping” and that her $2 million bond is “ransom.”
The Shelby County Sheriff’s spokesperson, Chip Washington, says they’ve been receiving emails since Gentry was arrested, “I don’t know who they’re effective for, the people who are writing them?” Washington says, “For us it’s just kind of a clutter in the inbox.”
The emails say the arrest of Gentry was a violation of a treaty with the U.S. They demand the release of the self-proclaimed Moorish American National.
One email states, “Fearing for her life and the life of her children Gentry was unable to come out of the home and engage in normal affairs.” However on Thursday, just hours before her arrest, ABC 24 News met Gentry at the mansion’s gate as she returned in her Jaguar.
The emails say Gentry was “kidnapped,” her children held for ransom and human trafficking by the Department of Children Services. They call the bank that owns the mansion, a “fictitious entity.”
The District Attorney’s office says the emails have no bearing on the criminal charges against Gentry. The Sheriff’s Office isn’t worried either. “We followed the letter of the law and we did what we needed to do to rectify the situation safely, that’s what we did.” Washington says, “We feel pretty comfortable with the verdict.”
Gentry is expected to appear in court at the end of the month.
Rebuttal to Foreign European Joy Lambert
The slanderous accusations are clearly an attempt by foreign European Joy Lambert whom aught produce for the record her green card being an alien to this land, and other foreign Europeans to entice the Moors into having an alleged “interview” with her to what? Set the record straight? Could that be the intent of these slanderous accusations with no base at law?
As has been demonstrated – We Moors of Maghrib’ al’ Acqa do not converse with foreign Europeans because it has already been demonstrated that they do not know how to relate information given to them as it was given in the correct context. They are with malicious intent unwilling to report facts; and in truth the facts and true lawful and verifiable documentation of what has been presented by writ on multiple occasions, is not researched and reported by these foreign Europeans as it would not be beneficial to their position and the position of their family members all of which are in alleged government position within an infrastructure designed to war against the Moors of Maghrib’ al’ Acqa Aboriginal Indigenous to the Land.
To ask unconscious Moors about government and law when the Christian Crusades , First Amendment violation, institution referred to as a “school” has not taught the People law as was instructed in the “United Nations Rights of Indigenous People”, is evidence of intent to slander, take advantage of the People, and deprive them of the very means that is enshrouded within the American Constitution that protects them.
We Moorish American Nationals, did not, do not, and have never appealed to any foreign government. The issue is not one of belief which is a low degree but one of knowing! It is a known fact across the globe that agents/officers operating through the government is nothing more than public servants. As such the People, i.e. Master aught never appeal to the public servants.
Freeing Abka Re Bey is not an act that requires an appeal but is a demand to public servants who clearly have overstepped their lawful authority as it is documented and verified in the United States Congressional Records “International Organizations Immunities Act, 9 December 1945, that all offices of the corporation UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and all its subdivisions inclusive of the STATE OF TENNESSEE and all STATES OF <> and COMMONWEALTH OF<>, have been turned over to the United Nations as declared by Congressman James Trafficant March 1993. Therefore from where do the alleged public servants derive their “Delegation of Authority/Quo Warranto”?
Let’s use common reasoning and talk about “government”, “state”, Oath of Office, Bond, and the Obligations of all public servants, and address them for a moment.
The purpose of government as stated in the “Declaration of Independence 1776” is “to secure the rights of the People”.
That means that all public servants of the said governments only function is to preserve, to protect, and to secure the rights of the People.
In order to ensure that the public servants observe their obligation, they must swear and/or affirm pursuant to their “Oath of Office” verbally and in writing to uphold said American Constitution 1791 of which the Declaration of Independence 1776 is embodied within along with the Articles of Confederation, Treaty of Peace and Friendship 1786, Articles of Association 1774, pursuant to Article VI of the American Constitution where it affirms “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuant thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the land;”
Let’s take a look at the word “state”. Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition defines “State” as follows: “A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other communities of the globe.”
We, Moorish American Nationals are not and cannot be a member of a foreign British Slavic Colony under the foreign jurisdiction of the “STATE OF TENNESSEE” or any other of the foreign corporate states as affirmed in the Original 13th Amendment where it states “those of African Descent cannot be citizens [of the Union States]”, we Moors, heirs of America, do not and cannot have the same habits or customs as foreign European occupiers. We are an Ancient People, whilst the Europeans are a modern contemporary People being hybrids. Oxford Dictionary Hybrid: “At best we [English] are but hybrids 1861.”
Looking at the fact that the Moors authorized the Europeans granting them permission to come to this land and underwrote, and financed the beginning of the Union Nations here at Northwest Amexem, North America, “The North Gate”, as affirmed in the letter from George Washington to the Sultan of Morocco 1 December 1789. *See letter in it entirety at the end.
Pursuant to the American Constitution, all public servants must have a “bond” to ensure they perform within the limitation of their Oath of Office which ensures they perform their duties. That established duty is to preserve, protect, and secure the rights of the People – Period.
If this is not done, public servants being trustees, that is “Breach of Fiduciary Duties” and are acts of “Treason” as affirmed in the American Constitution Article III Section III, where it affirms “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them,”, and “No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act”.
The actions of the public servants of TENNESSEE are not limited to Abka Re Bey, but against all Moor, conscious and unconscious of their Nationality, and the testimony of myself as put forth and other Moors across the Nation consist of more than two witnesses of the United States, said United States being the United States of Morocco/Al Moroc which is hidden from the People intentionally by said profiting Europeans.
Let us review the obligations of the “Sheriff” a public servant as it is very clear his function is unknown to most in the position of Sheriff. The obligation of the Sheriff is to protect the People even from unlawful and corrupt judges and magistrates and if said Sheriff does not protect the People but instead protects his fellow corrupt and unlawful public servants and protects corporations such acts are “Breach of Fiduciary Duties”, and is Treason.
It cannot be reiterated any moor clearly not just for Abka Re Bey our Moorish American National but for all People on this Continent where the American Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
The obligation of all public servants is to preserve, protect, and secure the rights of the People against encroachment of their liberties by corporations. The only corporation that the American Constitution authorized is the federal and states government with limited power and NONE of said powers include in any way authorization to regulate the People. No Statute, Ordinance, or Code can ever be written that directs the People in activities, ever as affirmed in the follow “Res Judicata”:
“When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles on which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.”Yik Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356 (1885)
“…and it is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.” Byars v. U.S., 273 US 28 (1927)
“The makers of our Constitution undertook….to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.” Olmstead v. U.S., 277 US 438 (1928)
“It is monstrous that courts should aid or abet the lawbreaking police officer. It is abiding truth that ‘[n]othing can destroy a government more quickly than its own failure to observe its own laws or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.'” Justice Brennan quoting Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643, 659 (1961) in Harris v. New York, 401 US 222, 232. (1971)
It was affirmed via North Carolina v. Class that the “Police” is not an agency of the state. Therefore the “Police” are in fact a private contractor.
How then does a private contracted corporation have any judicial authority but most importantly how does a private contractor which clearly operates as mercenaries obtain authorization from the very public servants who took a “Bonded” “Oath of Office” to protect, preserve, and secure the rights of the People? The public servants who authorized this act of contracting with mercenaries is guilty of treason as they are warring against the People. As such the People have a right to defend themselves against such trespassing as affirmed in the following “Res Judicata”:
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
The following is Moor Res Judicata that affirms the position of the public servant and the People i.e. the Master. For those public servants who appear to be uninformed of their obligation as well as the People who have intentionally been denied the very information and fundamental principals of government of which they aught to know being the Master of the public servant.
Juliard v. Greeman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884) Supreme Court Justice Field, ‘There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States… In this country, sovereignty resides in the People, and Congress can exercise power which they have not, by their Constitution, entrusted to it. All else is withheld.”
It is my obligation and responsibility to admonish the public servant when they overstep their boundaries as affirmed in the “Declaration of Independence 1776” where it states the following:
“When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
This is also affirmed in the following Res Judicata:
Perry v. United States , 204 U.S. 330, 358 “I do not understand the government to contend that it is any less bound by the obligation than a private individual would be…”
“It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.”
“Criminal law magistrates have no power of their own and are unable to enforce any ruling.” V.T.C.A., Government Code sec. 54.651 et seq., Davis v. State, 956 S.W.2d 555 (1997)
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) Note: By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges’ orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect.
The U.S. Supreme Court stated that “when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.”
United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S. Ct. at 261 (1882) “No man [or woman] in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.”
Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 678, 694 Acts in excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process.
Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 7; 8 S. Ct. 568, 2 L. Ed. 2d 603 (1958) “…in our country the people are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to them by taking away their citizenship.”
Boyd v. United, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885) Justice Bradley, “It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way; namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be Obsta Principiis.”
Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 155 (1966), cited also in Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649.644 “Constitutional ‘rights’ would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied.”
The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings.” Hagans v Lavine, 415 U. S. 533.
“A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational.” ASIS v. US, 568 F2d 284.
From Documents of American History
Letter from George Washington to Muhammed Ibn Abdullah—Sultan of Morocco
—City of New York December 1, 1789
Great and Magnanimous Friend,
Since the date of the letter which the late Congress, by their President, addressed to your Imperial Majesty, The United States of America have thought proper to change their government and institute a new one, agreeable to the Constitution, of which I have the honor, herewith, to enclose a copy. The time necessarily employed in the arduous task, and the disarrangements occasioned by so great though peaceable a revolution, will apologize, and account for your Majesty’s not having received those regularly advised marks of attention from the United States which the friendship and magnanimity of your conduct toward them afforded reason to expect.
The United States, having unanimously appointed me to supreme executive authority in this Nation. Your Majesty’s letter of August 17, 1788, which by reason of the dissolution of the late-government, remained unanswered, has been delivered to me. I have also received the letters which Your Imperial Majesty has been so kind as to write, in favor of the United States, to the Bashaws of Tunis and Tripoli, and I present to you the sincere acknowledgements and thanks of the United States for this important mark of your friendship for them.
We greatly regret the hostile disposition of those regencies toward this nation, who have never injured them, is not to be removed, on terms of our power to comply with. Within our territories there are no mines, wither of gold or silver, and this young nation just recovering from the waste and dissolution of a long war, have not, as yet, had time to acquire riches by agriculture and commerce. But our soil is bountiful, and our people industrious, and we have reason to flatter ourselves that we shall gradually become useful to our friends.
The encouragement which Your Majesty has been pleased, generously, to give to our commerce with your dominions, the punctuality with which you have caused the Treaty with us to be observed, and the just and generous measures taken in the case of Captain Proctor, make a deep impression on the United States and confirm their respect for and attachment to Your Imperial Majesty.
It gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity of assuring Your Majesty that, while I remain at the head of this nation, I shall not cease to promote every measure that may conduce to the friendship and harmony which so happily subsist between your Empire and them, and shall esteem myself happy in every occasion of convincing Your Majesty of the high sense (which in common with the whole nation) I entertain the magnanimity, wisdom and benevolence of Your Majesty.
May the Almighty bless Your Imperial Majesty, our Great and Magnanimous friend, with His constant guidance and protection.