Sundry Free Moors Act 2012 Congress)

Sundry Free Moors Act of 2012 — 1

A PROPOSED BILL TO THE

One Hundred Twelth Congressof the

UNITED STATES of AMERICAAT THE FIRST SESSION

Senate Bill # ____________

A Bill For An Act Entitled: Sundry Free Moors Act of 2012 an Act to deter viola-tions of the treaty, civil and political rights of “Any” Moor living within the Ter-ritorial Borders of the United States and recognition of Moors native to Amer-ica as an indigenous group to protect and preserve for Moors their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise the traditional religions of the Moor, including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites.

In the Senate

10-25-2011Whereas the Murakush Caliphate of America Corporation for its subsidiary corporate body politics and all Moors native to or living in the Several States, territories or outlying possessions governed by the United States introduce the following bill, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.

_______________ ProposalSeeking Resolution by the U.S. Senate of the following article is proposed as federal law under the jurisdiction of the Untied States of America, enforceable by Executive action.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as “Sundry Free Moors Act of 2012”.(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.Sec. 2. Findings; policy.Sec. 3. Definitions.


TITLE I -- CALL TO ACTION FOR CRIMES AGAINST MOORS IN THE UNITED STATES

Sec. 101. National origin discrimination and persecution findings.Sec. 102. The many forms of such violations occurring against Moors.Sec. 103. Moors in many U.S. States face such severe and violent forms of discrimination.Sec. 104. Slander by Law Enforcement.Sec. 105. Well Respected Political figures Publicly slander Moors.Sec. 106. Propaganda Article: Obama, The Silver Tongued Moor.

TITLE II HISTORY OF THE MOORSSec. 201. Roots and Etymology of Moors and Archaeological evidence supporting.Sec. 202. Mudejares and Moriscos.Sec. 203. Slaughter of the Moriscos by Early Spanish Inquisition.Sec. 204. Christopher Columbus: Extracts from Journal Edited by: Robert Guisepi 2002

Discovery of America Book: Appendix C Author: Fiske, John Date: 1892Sec. 205. BBC documentary on “An Islamic History of Europe”Sec. 206. Moorish American Indigenous History

(a)William Harlen’s book “Surviving Indian Groups of the Eastern United States(b) Dr. Barry Fell’s book “Saga America”(c) Dr. Ivan Van Sertima is widely renowned for his work, “They Came Before Columbus”(d) Booker T. Washington’s “Up from Slavery”(e) The Story of “Estevanico or Esteban the Moor”(f) The Van Salee Family by Mario de Valdes y Cocom

Sec. 207. Founders of the United States and their views on Islam.(a) Lincoln Defends “Black Bill’

Sec. 208. J.B. Stoner, the Archleader and Imperial Wizard of the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan letter to Muslims at the Convention in Chicago during Febru-ary 1957.

Sec. 209. Trafficking, Peonage and Sale into involuntary servitude of Moorish Emir Abdul-Rahman from Timbo, Africa.

Sec. 210. Clinton Alfred Weslager’s account of encounters with Moors and Nanticoke Indians by Clinton Alfred Weslager, John Swientochowski, L. T. Alexander.

Sec. 211. Transformations in schooling: historical and comparative perspectives” by Kimberley Tolley.

Sec. 212. Mitsawokett: The Moors of Delaware.Sec. 213. Noble Drew Ali founded Moorish Science Temple of America Inc., 1913.Sec. 214. Southern Poverty Law Center Libel against Moors.Sec. 215. N.Y.P.D targets and slanders Moroccan-Americans in the Name of Homeland

Security.Sec. 216. Federal Directive 15 and ROCIC.Sec. 217. Neo-Slavery.Sec. 218. “More African American men are in prison or jail, on probation or parole than

were enslaved in 1850, before the Civil War began,”.

TITLE III. --TREATIES OF THE UNITED STATES-MOROCCOSec. 301. A Moorish Nation was the first country to recognize the United States as a Na-

tion.Sec. 302. Letter from George Washington to the Sultan of Morocco.Sec. 303. 1836 Treaty of the United States.


Sec. 304. Convention of Madrid, concluded July 8, 1880.

TITLE IV. --LEGISLATIVE: STATE, FEDERAL, AND INTERNATIONAL Sec. 401. Virginia General Assembly Act of 1670. Sec. 402. Virginia General Assembly Act of 1682, c. 1. Purv. 282. Sec. 403. Virginia General Assembly Act of October 1705.Sec. 404. Virginia General Assembly Act of the act of 1748, c. 14. Revisal of 1748. Sec. 405. The Act of Massachusetts on 26th of March, 1788.Sec. 406. South Carolina. March 3, 1753 - History Muslims from North Africa, ap

pear in the records of South Carolina Council Journal.Sec. 407. South Carolina. March 3, 1753 - History Muslims from North Africa, ap

pear in the records of South Carolina Council Journal.Sec. 408. The Statutes at Large of South Carolina No. 1605Sec. 409. The Statutes at Large of South Carolina No. 1814Sec. 410. The Statutes at Large of South Carolina No. 2107. Sec. 411. The Statutes at Large of South Carolina No. 2141. Sec. 412. The Statutes at Large of South Carolina No. 2653. Sec. 413. The Statutes at Large of South Carolina No. 2319. Sec. 414. The Statutes at Large of South Carolina No. 2361. Sec. 415. On January 20, 1790, a petition was presented to the South Carolina

House of Representatives.Sec. 416. Legislative Journal - House - Page 5759 Resolution No. 75 May 4, 1933.Sec. 417. SSA PR 09-168 Request for Regional Chief Counsel Opinion on State Law

Recognition of Moorish A~ Marriages Ref: 09-0190 ID 475971 https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/1502705039.

Sec. 418. U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted May 20, 1996. Filed May 29, 1996. 86 F.3d 1159 es. No. 95-2549.

Sec. 419. Federal court case Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366 U.S. 187 (1961). Sec. 420. Moorish Treaty rights encompass universal human rights and fundamen

tal freedoms.Sec. 421. Codified International obligations of the United States.Sec. 422. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Done at Vienna on 23 May 1969.Sec. 423. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.Sec. 424. Article 1 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

entry into force 23 March 1976, 1. All peoples have the right of self-determination.

Sec. 425. Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who are not Nationals of the Country in which They Live.

Sec. 426. General Recommendation XXX Discrimination Against Non Citizens.Sec. 427. Articles 5 of the Adopted and proclaimed by the General Conference of the

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization at its twentieth session, on 27 November 1978 Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice.

Sec. 428. Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities. Sec. 429. Executive Order 13107 December 10, 1998.Sec. 430. Title 22 Chapter 32 Subchapter II Part I Human rights and security as

sistance.Sec. 431. Citizenship of the United States, expatriation, and protection abroad

By United States. Dept. of State, James Brown Scott, David Jayne Hill, Gaillard Hunt.


TITLE V. APOLOGIES AND DECLARATIONSSec. 501. Apologies from Spain to Moors and Jews. Sec. 502. Moroccan Historian Letter.Sec. 503. Christianity and Citizen Synonymous. Sec. 504. Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis, Department of Biol

ogySec. 505. Congress Apologizes for Slavery on Thursday June 19, 2009 the U.S.

Senate apologized for slavery.

TITLE VI. Purposes and Judicial ReliefSec. 601. Purposes of this Act and U.S. Case law. Sec. 602. As a pillar of the United States of America, Moorish treaty rights with

respect to a matter within the federal jurisdiction is supreme over a conflicting state law.

Sec. 603. The act is going to enforce the 1836 Treaty of the United States still in Force at 8 stat 484-487 within the Borders of the United States, its territories and outlying possessions.

Sec. 604. Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigations shall enforce - The administering of this act.

Sec. 605. The U.S. Department of State, the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the United States Commission on Inter-na-tional Religious Freedom.

Sec. 606. Title 18 of the United States Codes.Sec. 607. Supremacy Clause Unaffected “Treaties Law of the Land”.Sec. 608. The purposes of this Act listed.Sec. 609. Formation of the “Bureau of Moorish Affairs” a Independent Federal

Executive agency that promotes the health and welfare of Moorish peoples.

Sec. 610. The President shall direct the U.S. Department of State, the bipartisan United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.

TITLE VII. DefinitionsSec. 701. the term “Any Moor”Sec. 702. the term “Moorish Subjects”Sec. 703. the term “Government”Sec. 704. the term “State”Sec. 705. the term “United States”Sec. 706. the term “Moorish Empire”Sec. 707. the term “Murakush Caliphate of America Corporation”Sec. 708. the term “Vessel of the United States”Sec. 709. the term “Vessel of the Moorish Empire”Sec. 710. the term “ Moorish treaty rights and obligations”

TITLE VIII. PenaltiesSec. 801. Protection of rights of Moors.Sec. 802. Penalty and amount of Penalty.

SHORT TITLE I--(a) This bill may be cited as the “Sundry Free Moors Act of 2012 Act of 2012”.


TITLE I. CALL TO ACTION FOR CRIMES AGAINST MOORS IN THE UNITED STATES

Subsections 101-105 makes the following findings: In the territorial borders of the United States and the several States, Moors are targeted as well as discriminated against by Municipal, State and Federal law enforcement agencies nationwide.

(101) National origin discrimination and persecution findings Though not confined to a particular region or regime, na-tional origin discrimination and persecution is often particularly(a)widespread and based upon racketeering schemes under color of law.(b)systematic in its application.(c)heinous under municipal governments and in States with mili-tant, politicized religious majorities.

(102) The many forms of such violations occurring against Moors Among the many forms of such violations occurring against Moors include.(a)federal and state-sponsored public slander campaigns.(b)illegal searches and confiscations of property.(c)warrant less surveillance by security police, including special divisions of ‘‘municipal and state police’’.(d)severe prohibitions against construction and repair of places of worship.(e)denial of the right to freedom of expression, to identify them-selves as Moors. (f)denial of the right to freedom of expression, to identify using their Moorish-Islamic Names.(g)denial of rights to assemble coupled by relegation of Moorish corporate body politics to illegal status through arbitrary registra-tion laws.(h)prohibitions against the pursuit of education or public office.(i)prohibitions against possessing Moorish national, Corporate and tribal identification and materials.

(103) Moors in many U.S. States face such severe and violent forms of discrimination Even more abhorrent, Moors in many U.S. States face such severe and violent forms of.(a)national origin discrimination(b)religious persecution(c)detention(d)torture(e)beatings(f)imprisonment(g)enslavement(h)mass incarceration(i)Public Humiliation(j)denial of Moorish Consular Privelges.(k)Condemnation of freedom of expression of their Moorish iden-tity.

(104) Slander by Law Enforcement Immigration and other law enforcement officers often try to in timidate Moorish U.S. Citizens and Moorish non-U.S. citi-zens alike by telling them “they don’t have any rights, their treaty rights are expired, “Moorish treaties only apply to the Northern Coast of Africa”, “Moorish treaties don’t apply to criminal or civil disputes”, and not to Moors, and even if they are American Born.


(105) Well Respected Political figures Publicly slander Moors August 2, 2011, Rep. Doug Lamborn spoke to KHOW-AM radio about whom voters would hold responsible for actions on the nation’s debt ceiling when he said he thought voters would blame the president. Lamborn said: “Now I don’t want to even have to be associated with him. It is like touching a tar baby and you get it — you’re stuck, and you’re part of the problem now.” Some people consider the term “tar baby” to be a racial epithet. Lam-born’s spokeswoman Catherine Mortensen said in a written state-ment Monday that Lamborn simply meant to refer to a sticky situa-tion. She says Lamborn sent an apology letter to President Obama. United States politicians--including presidential candidates John McCain, John Kerry, and Mitt Romney--have received public criti-cism in recent years from civil rights leaders, members of the popu-lar daily media, and fellow politicians due to their perception of racial overtones behind the use of the metaphor “tar baby”. The Oxford English Dictionary lists “tar baby” as a deroga-tory term for a black or a Maori [Mauri].

(106) Propaganda Article: Obama, The Silver Tongued Moor January 30, 2008, a website known as “the Enemy”published a blog titled “Obama, The Silver Tongued Moor” exploiting the fact that the President has a Moorish ancestry through his Islamic and African Ancestry and Heritage without public proclamation other than his declarations as a U.S. Citizen of being apart of the Afri-can American class. http://theenemy.typepad.com/enemy/2008/01/obama-the-silve.html

TITLE II. HISTORY OF THE MOORS

Subsections 201-219 Sec. 201. Roots and Etymology of the term Moor and Archaeological

evidence supporting indigenous status.(a)The English word Moor derives from the Germanic term “Mor”, the Latin, the word maurus (plural mauri) means coming from Mauretania, after the Punic wars became a Roman province on the northwestern fringe of Africa. In the Medieval Romance lan-guages (such as Portuguese, Spanish, French, Italian, Romanian), the root appeared in such forms as mouro, moro, moir, mor and maur. Derivatives are found in today’s versions of the languages. Some derive the word from the ancient Greek mauros, meaning “dark” or “black-skinned”. (b)Mauretania or the Land of the Moors. This district, which was separated on the East from Numidia, by the river Ampsaga, and on the South. from Gaetulia, by the snowy range of the Atlas, was washed upon the N. coast by the Mediterranean, and on the W. by the Atlantic. From the earliest times it was occupied by a people whom the ancients distinguished by the name MAURUSII (Strab. i. p.5, iii. pp. 131, 137, xvii. pp. 825, 827; Liv. 24.49; Verg. A. 4.206; Ptol. 4.1.11) or MAURI ( “Blacks,” in the Alexandrian dialect, Paus. i, 33 § 5, 8.43. [2.297] § 3; Sal. Jug. 19; Pomp. Mela, 1.4.3; Liv. 21.22, 28.17; Hor. Carm. 1.22. 2, 2.6. 3, 3.10. 18; Tac. Ann. 2.52, 4.523, 14.28, Hist. 1.78, 2.58, 4.50; Lucan 4.678; Juv. 5.53, 6.337; Flor. 3.1, 4.2); hence the name MAURETANIA (the proper form as it appears in inscriptions, Orelli, Inscr. 485, 3570, 3672; and on coins, Eckhel, vol. vi. p. 48; comp. Tzchucke, ad Pomp. Mela, 1.5.1) or MAURITANIA ( Ptol. 4.1.2; Caes. B.C. 1.6, 39; Hirt. B. Afr. 22; Pomp. Mela, 1.5; Plin. Nat. 5.1; Eutrop. 4.27, 8.5; Flor. iv. (the MSS. and printed editions vary between this form and that of Mauretania); Strab. p. 827).(c)“These Moors, were not be considered a different race from the Numidians, but as a tribe belonging to the same stock. They were


represented by Sallust (Sal. Jug. 21) and remnants of the army of Hercules. Also being represented by Procopius (B. V. 2.10) as the posterity of the Cananaeans who fled from Joshua; He quotes two columns with a Phoenician inscription. Procopius supposedly was the only, or at least the most ancient author, who mentions this inscription. Furthermore his invention of it has been attributed to himself. When it occurs, however, in the history of Moses of Chorene (1.18), to Moses being accredited for writing more than a century before Procopius. This same inscription is mentioned by Suidas (s. v.), who probably quotes from Procopius. “The name Maure was first used for one of the several dozen ‘black skinned’ tribes that occupied North Africa even before the Christian era. The Mauri tribe itself included the Mazazaces, Baueres, Bagoda and Gentiani and several other clans.”(d)Through nominalization, the root has taken on a variety of mean-ings. Moreno, from the Latin root, can mean “tanned” in countries like Spain, Portugal, or Brazil. In Cuba and other Spanish-speak-ing American countries, it can mean “black person” or “mulatto”. Among Spanish speakers, moro (“Moor”) came to have a broader meaning, applied to both Moros of Mindanao in the Philippines, and the Moriscos of Granada. Moro is used to describe all things dark, as in “Moor”, moreno, etc.(e)In Polish murzyn means a black person. It can be used either neutrally or pejoratively. It was used as a nickname, for instance; Milanese Duke Ludovico Sforza was called Il Moro because of his dark complexion.(f)In Portugal and Spain, mouro (feminine, moura) may also refer to supernatural beings known as enchanted moura, where “moor” implies ‘alien’ and ‘non-Christian’. From this root, the name moor is also applied to unbaptised children, meaning not Christian.(g)In Basque, mairu means moor and also refers to a mythical peo-ple.(h)The Greek adjective Mauros, meaning dark or black (denot-ing skin complexion and the peoples of Ancient Mauritania ) Circa 46BC. See: The Oxford English Dictionary (New York, Oxford University Press, 1977, p. `846.)(i)Moorish kingdoms existed in much of present-day Morocco and Algeria before the establishment od those jurisdictions, between the end of effective Roman rule in the area and the Byzantine and Arab invasions of Africa. Direct Roman rule became confined to a few coastal cities (such as Ceuta in Mauretania Tingitana and Cherchell in Mauretania Caesariensis) from the late 3rd century in Maure-tania Tingitana and after the Vandal invasion of 429 in Maureta-nia Caesariensis. Historical sources about inland areas are sparse, but these were apparently controlled by local Moorish rulers who maintained a degree of Roman culture. This included the local cit-ies, usually nominally acknowledged the suzerainty of the Roman Emperors. In an inscription from Altava in western Algeria, one of these rulers named Masuna, described himself as rex gentium Mau-rorum et Romanorum (king of the Roman and Moorish peoples). Altava was later the capital of another ruler, Garmul or Garmules, who resisted Byzantine rule in Africa but was finally defeated in 578. The Byzantine historian Procopius also mentions another in-dependent ruler, Mastigas, who controlled most of Mauretania Cae-sariensis in the 530s.(j)The area was later reunited with the Byzantine Empire as a re-sult of Justinian’s campaigns of c. 533 AD; it was conquered by the Moors at the end of the next century.(k)Moorish dominions stretched at times, as far as modern-day Mauritania, West African countries, and the Senegal River. In Sen-egambia, between 1300 and 1900, close to one-third of the popula-tion was enslaved. In early Islamic states of the western Sudan, including Ghana (750–1076), Mali (1235–1645), Segou (1712–1861), and Songhai (1275–1591), about a third of the population were en-


slaved. In Sierra Leone in the 19th century about half of the popu-lation consisted of enslaved people. In the 19th century at least half the population was enslaved among the Duala of the Camer-oon and other peoples of lower Niger, the Kongo, and the Kasanje kingdom and Chokwe of Angola. Among the Ashanti and Yoruba a third of the population consisted of enslaved people. The popu-lation of the Kanem (1600–1800) was about a third-enslaved. It was perhaps 40% in Bornu (1580–1890). Between 1750 and 1900 from one- to two-thirds of the entire population of the Fulani jihad states consisted of enslaved people.(l)The Sokoto Caliphate is an Islamic spiritual community in Ni-geria, led by the Sultan of Sokoto, Sa’adu Abubakar. Founded during the Fulani Jihad in 1809 by Usuman dan Fodio, it was one of the most powerful empires in sub-Saharan Africa prior to Eu-ropean conquest and colonization. The caliphate remained extant through the colonial period and afterwards, though with reduced power.The population of the Sokoto caliphate formed by Hausas in the northern Nigeria and Cameroon was half-enslaved in the 19th century. When British rule was first imposed on the Sokoto Caliphate and the surrounding areas in northern Nigeria at the turn of the 20th century, approximately 2 million to 2.5 million people there were enslaved.(m) Earlier, the Classical Romans interacted with (and later con-quered) parts of AncientMauretania, a Moorish state that covered northern portions of modern Morocco and much of north western and central Algeria during the classical period. The people of the region were noted in Classical literature as the Mauri. (n)In various medieval literature the term Moor” was colloquially applied to any person from North Africa and any dark or black sinned person.(o)The term Moroccan is a denotative national identity derived from the Free National Name “Moor”. The full Arabic name al-Mamlakat al-Maghribiyyah translates to “The Western Kingdom”. Al-Maghrib, meaning “The West”, is commonly used. For histori-cal references, medieval Moorish historians and geographers used to refer to Morocco as al-Maghrib al-Aqsá, “The Farthest West”), disambiguating it from neighboring historical regions called al-Maghrib al-Awsat, “The Middle West”, Algeria) and al-Maghrib al-Adná, “The Nearest West”, Tunisia).(p)The English name “Morocco” originates from Spanish “Mar-ruecos” or the Portuguese “Marrocos”, from medieval Latin “Morroch”, which referred to the name of the former Almoravid and Almohad capital, Marrakesh.(q)In Persian and Urdu, Morocco is still called “Marrakesh”. Un-til recent decades, Morocco was called “Marrakesh” in Middle Eastern Arabic. In Turkish, Morocco is called “Fas” which comes from the ancient Idrisid and Marinid capital, Fez.(r)The word “Marrakesh” is made of the Imazighen (singular: Amazigh) the indigenous peoples of North Africa west of the Nile Valley word combination Murt n Akush (Murt n Akuc), meaning Land of God. The best known of the ancient Amazigh’s are the Numidian king Masinissa, the Amazigh-Roman author Apuleius, Saint Augustine of Hippo, and the Roman general Lusius Quietus, who was instrumental in defeating the major wave of Jewish re-volts of 115–117. Famous Amazigh’s of the Middle Ages include Tariq ibn Ziyad, a general who conquered Hispania; Abbas Ibn Firnas, a prolific inventor and early pioneer in aviation; Ibn Bat-tuta, a medieval explorer who traveled the longest known distanc-es in pre-modern times; and Estevanico, an early explorer of the Americas.(s)Circa 480 A.D., The Monastic Brotherhood (Catholic Moors from Morocco) landed on present day Connecticut (North Ameri-ca), near the coast of Long Island Sound.(t)The inscription found on granite outcrops in Cockaponset For-


est, CN., and the inscription on Haj Minmoun Rock located in Figuig toward the east of Morocco, confirms the voyage. North Af-rican Arabic and Old Kufic scripts are engraved on rocks, test, dia-gram, charts including writing, reading, arithmetic, religion, his-tory, geography, mathematics, astronomy and sea navigation. See: Moroccan daily Newspaper (Le Matin D Sahara Et Du Magred, Sep-tember 16, 1995).(u) In 1441, the first slaves were brought to Portugal from northern Mauritania. The first Europeans to arrive on the coast of Guinea were the Portuguese; the first European to actually buy enslaved Africans in the region of Guinea was Antão Gonçalves, a Portu-guese explorer in 1441 CE/AD. The maritime town of Lagos, Por-tugal, was the first slave market created in Portugal for the sale of imported African slaves – the Mercado de Escravos, opened in 1444. In the 16th century the Portuguese settlers found that these volcanic islands were ideal for growing sugar. Sugar growing is a labour-intensive undertaking and Portuguese settlers were difficult to attract due to the heat, lack of infrastructure, and hard life. To cultivate the sugar the Portuguese turned to large numbers of en-slaved Moors. Elmina Castle on the Gold Coast, originally built by Moorish labor for the Portuguese in 1482 to control the gold trade, became an important depot for slaves that were to be transported to the New World. Much of the inhabitant of the 10th Century Carolingian Empire did not describe themselves as “Europeans,” a names coined in the 17th Century.(v)The Spanish were the first Europeans to use enslaved Moors in the New World on islands such as Cuba and Hispaniola, where the alarming death rate in the native population had spurred the first royal laws protecting the native population (Laws of Burgos, 1512–1513). The first enslaved Moors arrived in Hispaniola in 1501 soon after the Papal Bull of 1493 gave all of the New World to Spain.(w)In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas, granting Afonso V of Portugal the right to reduce any “Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers” to hereditary slavery. This ap-proval of slavery was reaffirmed and extended in his Romanus Pon-tifex bull of 1455. These papal bulls came to serve as a justification for the subsequent era of slave trade and European colonialism. However Pope Eugene IV in his bull, Sicut Dudum of 1435 had condemned the enslavement of the black inhabitants of the Canary Islands. Pope Paul III in 1537 issued an additional Bull, Subli-mis Deus, declaring that all peoples, even those outside the faith should not be deprived of their liberty. The followers of the church of England and Protestants did not use the papal bulls as a justifi-cation for their involvement in slavery. The English translation of Romanus Pontifex is a reproduction of its publication in European Treaties bearing on the History of the United States and its De-pendencies to 1648, Frances Gardiner Davenport, editor, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1917, Washington, D.C., at pp. 20-26. The original text in Latin is in the same.

(202) Mudejares and Moriscos(a)1487— Milaga was taken after a long siege by the forces of Fer-dinand and Isabella, and in 1492 Granada was taken by Christian Powers. Many of the Moors had accepted Christianity; these, called Mudejares, were now joined by new converts, the Moriscos. (b)They were allowed to stay in Spain, but were kept under close surveillance. Moors were forced to convert to Christianity, edicts were put out by Queen Isabella of which one was that they were not to wear Moorish Garb, etc. Moors were and still are known in Spain as the Moriscos, those who converted to Christianity out of force.


(203) Slaughter of the Moriscos by Early Inquisition (a)1568— They were persecuted by Philip II, revolted in 1568, and in the Inquisition were virtually exterminated. In 1609 the remaining Moriscos were expelled. Thus the glory of the Moorish civilization in Spain trailed out. Its contributions to Western Eu-rope and especially to Spain, Portugal and southern France were well-nigh incalculable— in art and architecture medicine and sci-ence and learning. (b)The Moriscos were Moors. This above bullet point indicates the persecution and extermination of the Moors in the eastern hemi-sphere (holocaust). Many status quo scholars have written this as a complete extermination when in fact it was not. (c)Many Moors were labeled Indians. The term ‘indians” or Na-tive American” both owe their existences to Europeans. The name India is derived from Indus, which is derived from the Old Persian word Hindu, from Sanskrit Sindhu, the historic local appellation for the Indus River. The ancient Greeks referred to the Indians as Indoi, the people of the Indus. The Word Indian is India Like The Ink It Means, Black Pigment. See: Webster’s New World Diction-ary (Third College Edition, 1988), p.686. India ink Indian ink in British English) is a simple black ink once widely used for writing and printing and now more commonly used for drawing, especially when inking comic books and comic strips.dia ink has been in use in India since at least the 4th century BC, where it was called masi, an admixture of several substances. Indian documents written in Kharosthi with this ink have been unearthed in as far as Xinjiang, China. The practice of writing with ink and a sharp-pointed needle was common practice since antiquity in South India. Several an-cient Buddhist and Jain scripts in India were also compiled in ink. In India, the carbon black from which India ink is formulated was obtained indigenously by burning bones, tar, pitch and other sub-stances.(d)Moorish-American history starts well before the 16th century, and before the Moorish captives rose up against Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón (c. 1475, probably Toledo, Spain – 18 October 1526).(e)Ayllón was a member of the Real Audiencia in Santo Domingo, he was a Christian Spanish explorer who in 1526 established the short-lived San Miguel de Gualdape colony, the first European attempt at a settlement in what is now the continental United States.(f)De Ayllón had received from Charles V in 1523 a grant for the land explored in 1521 by Francisco Gordillo and slave trader Cap-tain Pedro de Quejo (de Quexo). On the 1521 expedition, Gordillo and de Quejo had kidnapped about 70 natives, including Francisco de Chicora, who survived, learned Spanish in Hispaniola, and pro-vided essential ethnographic data about his homeland, Chicora.(g)The employment of Moorish captives in the 1526 colony is per-haps the first instance of African slave-labour within the present territory of the United States. Ayllón died in the colony in 1526, purportedly in the arms of a Dominican friar. Some were murdered over the years, other were amalgamated into fair skin, and amalga-mation is how they will return as they are aboriginal and indigenous to this land.(h)Circa 1492 A.D., On Monday October 21, 1492, Christopher Columbus admits in his papers, while sailing near Cuba, he saw a mosque on top of a beautiful mountain. The ruins of mosques and minerats with inscriptions of Quranic verses have been found in Cuba, Mexico, Texas and Nevada. The dress of many American Indian woman include long veils” the men “Breedclothes painted in the style of Moorish draperies” in Grenada and Trinidad.

(204) Christopher Columbus: Extracts from Journal Edited by: Robert Guisepi 2002 Discovery Of America Book: Appendix C Author: Fiske, John Date: 1892 This document is the from the journal of Columbus in his voyage of 1492.


Christopher Columbus, himself declared that his impression of the Carib people (i.e., Caribbean people) were “Mohemmedans.” He knew of the Mandinka presence in the New World (Muslims) and that Muslims from the North and West coast of Africa had settled down in the Caribbean, Central, South and North America. Co-lumbus further admitted that on October 21st, 1492, as he was sail-ing past Gibara on the coast of Cuba, he saw a mosque. Since then many remnants of other Masjids have been found in Cuba, Mexico, Texas and Nevada. In Puerto Rico, found in the 1500 era ‘Fort of the Moors’ Arabic writings are found on one of the walls of the fort. Even in downtown old San Juan we found a restaurant storefront decorat-ed in Arabic tiles, centuries old. On the second voyage Columbus took to the West Indies, the people of Haiti told him that “black skinned” people had been there before him. They showed him spears of these visitors, and further studies of the metals involved in their construction, showed that they could have been made only in one place: Guinea.

“IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST: Whereas, Most Christian, High, Excellent, and Powerful Princes, King and Queen of Spain and of the Islands of the Sea, our Sovereigns, this present year 1492, after your Highnesses had terminated the war with the Moors reigning in Europe, the same having been brought to an end in the great city of Granada, where on the second day of January, this present year, I saw the royal banners of your Highnesses planted by force of arms upon the towers of the Alhambra, which is the fortress of that city, and saw the Moorish king come out at the gate of the city and kiss the hands of your Highnesses, and of the Prince my Sover-eign; and in the present month, in consequence of the information which I had given your Highnesses respecting the countries of India and of a Prince, called Great Can, which in our language signifies King of Kings, how, at many times he, and his predecessors had sent to Rome soliciting instructors who might teach him our holy faith, and the holy Father had never granted his request, whereby great numbers of people were lost, believing in idolatry and doc-trines of perdition. Your Highnesses, as Catholic Christians, and princes who love and promote the holy Christian faith, and are enemies of the doctrine of Mahomet, and of all idolatry and heresy, determined to send me, Christopher Columbus, to the above-mentioned countries of India, to see the said princes, people, and territories, and to learn their disposition and the proper method of converting them to our holy faith; and furthermore directed that I should not pro-ceed by land to the East, as is customary, but by a Westerly route, in which direction we have hitherto no certain evidence that any one has gone. So after having expelled the Jews from your domin-ions, your Highnesses, in the same month of January, ordered me to proceed with a sufficient armament to the said regions of India, and for that purpose granted me great favors, and ennobled me that thenceforth I might call myself Don, and be High Admiral of the Sea, and perpetual Viceroy and Governor in all the islands and continents which I might discover and acquire, or which may here-after he discovered and acquired in the ocean; and that this dignity should be inherited by my eldest son, and thus descend from degree to degree forever. Hereupon I left the city of Granada, on Saturday, the twelfth day of May, 1492, and proceeded to Palos, a seaport, where I armed three vessels, very fit for such an enterprise, and having provided myself with abundance of stores and seamen, I set sail from the port, on Friday, the third of August, half an hour before sunrise, and steered for the Canary Islands of your Highnesses which are in the said ocean, thence to take my departure and proceed till I arrived at the Indies, and perform the embassy of your Highnesses


to the Princes there, and discharge the orders given me. For this purpose I determined to keep an account of the voyage, and to write down punctually everything we performed or saw from day to day, as will hereafter appear. Moreover, Sovereign Princes, be-sides describing every night the occurrences of the day, and every day those of the preceding night, I intend to draw up a nautical chart, which shall contain the several parts of the ocean and land in their proper situations; and also to compose a book to represent the whole by picture with latitudes and longitudes, on all which accounts it behooves me to abstain from my sleep, and make many trials in navigation, which things will demand much labor.

(205) The full documentary; produced by BBC An Islamic History of Europe. In 1502 Ferdinand ordered a mass baptism of all Moors. Those who were forced to convert were denationalized and lost their identities. They were given Christian Names and were per-secuted. The Moors had never forced the Christians to convert to Islam for many Moors it was too much to bear those who would not convert fled to into the Sierra Nevada. After Ferdinand and Isa-bella took over Moorish Spain, their Religious advisor Cardinal Cisneros founder of the Inquisition said good Christians cannot live with infidels so the Moors must be driven them out and the way it was done was by legislation enacted which made their lives intolerable with the extreme burdens on the religious practices and customs. All over Spain are monuments of Columbus request and conquest of 1492 to reach the East Indies. Isabella in fact rejected Columbus’s petition. She was only persuaded by Luis de Santángel a Jewish convert to Christianity who interceded on Columbus’s behalf, another Jewish convert Luis Coronal the Popes Minster of Finance bankrolled the entire expedition, Columbus studied Moorish Maps, used Moorish astrolabes from Moors from Toledo, American Gold transformed Spain into an Colonial Empire, all of Europe got wealthy off plundering Spanish ships.. Without Moor-ish expertise Spain would not have become the greatest Colonial Empire in the 16th century. Moorish Culture is permanently hard wired wire into European Civilization and helped propel the con-tinent out of the middle ages and into the Renaissance.

(206) Moorish American Indigenous History The descendants of Nomadic Moors are members in the present day African American populus, as well the Iroquois, Al-gonquin, Anasazi, Hohokam, Apache, Arawak, Arikana, Chavin, Cherokee, Cree, Hupa, Hopi, Makkah, Mohawak, Naca, Zulu, Zuni. Many of these words, derive from Arabic root origins. See: Precolumbian Muslims in the America’s by Dr. Yousef Mroueh. (a) William Harlen in “Surviving Indian Groups of the Eastern United States According to William Harlen in “Surviving Indian Groups of the Eastern United States: Annual Report Smithsonian Institu-tion” other known groups were the Arab’s of Summit, in Schoharie County, New York, The Mecca Indians, the Hassanamisco Nipmug of Massachusetts, the Turks of South Carolina, the Brass Ankles of South Carolina, and the Seminoles of Florida, who were among the many different groups found here in America. History shows that some of the descendants of the early Moorish Muslims married and lived among American Indian tribes like the Alibamu of Alabama, Apaches, Anasazi, Arawak, Arika-na, Blackfoot, the Black Indians of the Schuylkill River area in New York, Cherokees, Creeks, Kickapoo, Lenapi, Makkahs, Mec-cans, Mahigans, Mohanets, Mohegan’s, Nanticoke’s, Seminoles, Zulus, and the Zuni Indians. The early Moors were inhabitants of Dover, Delaware; Bridgeton in Southern New Jersey; Sumter, South Carolina, and


in parts of the Delmarva area of Maryland. The Melungeon Moors lived in parts of Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia, the Guineas lived in West Virginia, the Arab Clappers lived in upstate New York, the Laster Tribe lived near Hertford, North Carolina, and the Ben Ishmael Tribe lived in Kentucky, parts of Illinois and Indi-ana. There are more than 500 names of places, villages, streets, towns, cities, lakes, rivers, etc . . . in the United States in which there name are derived from African, Islamic, and Arabic words. Places like Mecca, Indiana; Morocco, Indiana; Medina, NY; Medi-na, OH; Medina, TX; Toledo, OH; Mahomet, IL; Mahomet, Texas; Yarrowsburg, MD; Islamorada, FL, and Tallahassee, FL are found throughout America. There are at least two cities in Illinois named after Nubian Cities Argo and Dongola, Illinois. Other cities with possible Islamic and African root names are Allakaket, Alakanuk, and Soloman, Alaska; Ali Chuk, Ali Molina, Ali Oidak, Arizona; Cushman, Arkansas; Alameda, and Malcolm X Square, California; Abeyta, and Medina Plaza, Colorado; Libe-ria Historical, Connecticut; Medulla, and Sallee Heights, Florida; Mecca Historical, Tallulah Falls, and Zaidee, Georgia; Aliamanu, and Maili Hawaii; Hagerstown, Samaria, and Syria, Indiana; Cairo Junction, Egypt Shores, Egyptian Hills, Egyptian Acres, Hagar-stown, Media, Medinah, and Shabbona, Illinois; Mingo, Ollie, Pal-estine Historical, Sabula, Salem, Tama, Makee, and Malak, Iowa; Assaria, Kansas; Gamaliel, Kentucky; Jordan Hill, and Tallulah, Louisiana; Hagerstown, and Yarrowburg, Maryland; Egypt Beach, Massachusetts; Almira, Hagar Township, and Zilwaukee, Michigan; Amiret, Amor, Isanti, Mesaba, Kanaranzi, Quamba, and Suomi, Minnesota; Egypt Hill, and Itta Bena, Mississippi; Ameera Histori-cal, Ebo, Egypt Grove, Egypt Mills, Sabula, and Yarrow, Missouri; Madrid, Nebraska; Alhambra Historical, New Mexico; Cairo Junc-tion, Hague, Nunda, Salem, Salamanc, and Unadilla, New York; Babylon Historical, Nevada, Amenia, North Dakota; Ashtabula, Damascus Historical, Kalida, Sabina, and Toledo, Ohio; Damas-cus Heights, Jordan Creek, Jordan Valley, and South Lebanon, Oregon; Aliquippa, Egypt Corners, Egypt Mills, Jordan Valley, and Media, Pennsylvania; Jordan Village, Utah; Bagdad Histori-cal, Cairo Bend, Isham, Palestine Historical, and Zu Zu, Texas; Ahmedabad, Egypt Bend Estates, and Jordan Springs, Virginia; Bagdad Junction, Illahee, Shuwah, and Yarrow Point, Washing-ton; Algeria Historical, Egypt Historical, Jordan Run, and Jumbo, West Virginia; Medina Junction, and Mecan, Wisconsin, and Holy Islamville, South Carolina. Circa 1503—1517 A.D., An estimated 3,000 Aboriginal Moors were captured from the eastern seaboard of Terra Nova (North America) some of their names are Ali, Melchor, Miguel, Manne, Juan, Pedro, Antonio and Juan-Amarco. A record of that account can be fond in the Slave Books of Seville, Valencia, Cata-lina Spain. They were classified as Negro’s meaning Property . 1547 is the year dated to the oldest known use for the term blackamoor, Moors were branded under derogatory and offensive terms such as Black-a-Moor, generations later Moor was dropped from the term and “Black” remained and replaced with the custom-ary terms African, Nigger, Negroe, Colored or Black. Noah Web-ster’s 1828 “American Dictionary of the English Language defines Black as “ Black a. [Sax. blac, and blaec, black, pale, wan, livid; blacian, blaecan, to become pale, to turn white, to become black, to blacken; blaec, ink; Sw. blek, pale, wan, livid; bleck, ink; Sw. Blek, pale, wan, livid; bleck, ink’ bleka, to insolate, to expose to the sun, or to bleach; also to lighten, to flash; D. Bleek, palel bleek-en, to Bleichen, to bleach; Dan. blaek, ink; bleeg, pale, wan, bleak, sallow; bleeger, to bleach. It is remarkable that black, bleak and bleach are all radically one word. The primary sense seems to be, pale, wan or swallow, from which has proceeded the present variety


of significations. Online Etymological Dictionary. black (adj., n.)O.E. blæc “the color black; dark,” from P.Gmc. *blakaz “burned” (cf. O.N. blakkr “dark,” O.H.G. blah “black,” Swed. bläck “ink,” Du. blaken “to burn”), from PIE *bhleg- “to burn, gleam, shine, flash” (cf. Gk. phlegein “to burn, scorch,” L. flagrare “to blaze, glow, burn”), from base *bhel- (1); see bleach. The same root produced O.E. blac “bright, shining, glittering, pale;” the connecting no-tions being, perhaps, “fire” (bright) and “burned” (dark). The usual O.E. word for “black” was sweart (see swart). According to OED: “In ME. it is often doubtful whether blac, blak, blake, means ‘black, dark,’ or ‘pale, colourless, wan, livid.’ “Adjective used of dark-skinned people in O.E. The noun in this sense is first attested 1620s (perhaps late 13c.; blackamoor is from 1540s; see moor). Of coffee, first attested 1796. Sense of “dark purposes, malignant” emerged 1580s (e.g. black art). To be in the black (1928) is from the accounting practice of recording credits and balances in. black ink. black (v.) “to make black or dark; dye,” early 15c., from black (adj.). Related: Blacked; blacking. Noah Webster’s 1828 “American Dictionary of the English Language Defines the term Moor, n. [D. moor; G. mohr; Fr. maure; Gr. auaupos, uaupos, dark, obscure.] A native of the northern coast of Africa, called by the Romans from the color of the people, Mauritania, the country of dark complexioned people. The same country is now called Morocco, Tunis, Algiers, & etc. Online Etymological Dictionary: defines the term Moor as: “North African, Imazighen,” late 14c., from O.Fr. More, from M.L. Morus, from L. Maurus “inhabitant of Mauritania” (north-west Africa, a region now corresponding to northern Algeria and Morocco), from Gk. Mauros, perhaps a native name, or else cog-nate with mauros “black” (but this adjective only appears in late Greek and may as well be from the people’s name as the reverse). Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for “Negro;” later (16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately against Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but espe-cially those in India. From 1566-1587 Spain kept and maintained a military out-post and settlement called Santa Elena on the southern tip of Parris Island, SC. Portuguese were known to be among the Spaniards at Santa Elena. In Spain 1568 the Alpujarra uprising of the Moriscos (Muslims’ who were forcibly converted to Catholicism) gave cause to another wave of Portuguese Moriscos to leave Spain. In 1586 the English pirate Sir Francis Drake proceeded to raid his Spanish and Portuguese enemies on the coast of Brazil. During the raid Drake liberated or captured 400 Portuguese and Spanish held prisoners, including an estimated 300 Moorish and Turkish galley slaves who were captured in Mediterranean Sea battles, as well as several dozen South American Indians, a small-er group of West African Muslims, and a few Portuguese soldiers. Drake had planned to arm and release the Turks and Moors on Cuba, but heavy storms forced them to continue up the coast of North Carolina. Drake finally landed on Roanoke Island, North Carolina where he met some stranded English settlers pleading for a ride home. Reports have it that he left at least 200 of the West African Moors, Turks, Portuguese soldiers, and South American Indians there on the Island. In 1639, The First Moor recorded by name on the Delmar va Peninsula was called Anthony. He was delivered near present day Wilmington. He was often described as”an Angoler or Moor,” and called “Blackamoor.” See the”Delaware’s Forgotten Folk” The Story of the Moors & Nanticokes by C.A. Weslager In 1654, English explorers from Jamestown reported finding a colony of bearded people “Moors” wearing European clothing, living in cabins engaging in mining, smelting silver and dropping to


their knees to pray many times daily in the mountains of what is now, North Carolina. In 1684, Moors are reported to have arrived in Delaware near Dover, and in Southern New Jersey near Bridgeton. During this same year in Virginia the benefits of Christianity as a mode of securing freedom were definitely denied to all Negroes, mulattoes, Moors, and Turks, and to such Indian slaves as were sold by other Indians where original heathenism was affirmed. From the 1880s to 1914, several thousand Muslims many of them Moors immigrated to the United States from the Ottoman Empire. Many other Muslims and their descendants came to America’s shores after being marooned, such as the Moors of Delaware near Dover, and of Southern New Jersey near Bridgeton, and in parts of Southern Maryland; the Melungeon Moors of Tennessee and Vir-ginia; the Guineas of West Virginia; the Clappers of New York; the Turks of South Carolina; and the Laster Tribe near Hertford, NC. in Perquimans County. It is reported that the Laster Tribe was descendants from a Moorish captain who married a white woman and settled in the area. They are known to be a mixed tribe who has a tradition and heritage from a Moorish sea captain who mar-ried a white woman and settled in the area. The Laster’s principal family names are the Coe Clan, Pools, Slaughters, Van Guilders, Goins, and Maleys. Historically Moors have been present in North America from the earliest years of European exploration evidence indicates that Azemmuri the Moor a boat pilot from Azemmour, landed in America before Columbus. (B) In 1980 Dr. Barry Fell’s book “Saga America” Dr. Barry Fell, a noted New Zealand archaeologist and lin-guist of Harvard University, showed detailed existing evidence in his work, “Saga America”, that Moors were not only in the Ameri-cas before Columbus arrived, but very active there as well. He reports the southwest Pima people possessed a vocabulary which contained words of Arabic origin. Dr. Fell also reports that in Inyo County, California, there exits an early rock carving which stated in Arabic:”Yasus ben Maria” (“Jesus, Son of Mary”). This is not a Christian phrase; in fact, the phrase is to be found in the verses and ayahs of the Holy Quran. Dr. Fell also discovered the existence of Muslim schools in Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and Indiana dating back to 700-800 CE. The language of these Pima people in the South West and the Algonquian language had many words in their vocabulary that were Arabic in origin, and Islamic petroglyphs were found in places such as California. This glyph, as Fell believes, is centuries older than the US. In the West-ern states of the US he found texts, diagrams and charts engraved on rocks that were used for schooling that dated back to 700-800 C.E. The schooling was in subjects such as mathematics, his-tory, geography, astronomy and sea navigation. The language of instruction was Kufic Arabic, from North Africa. The German art historian, Alexander Von Wuthenau, also provides evidence that Islamic peoples were in America, in the time between 300 and 900 C.E. This was at least half a millennium before Columbus was born! Carved heads, that were described as “Moorish-looking” were dated between 300 and 900 C.E. and another group of heads dated between 900 and 1500 C.E. An artifact found in the earlier group was photographed, and when later examined was found to resemble an old man in a Fez, like the Egyptians.

(C) Dr. Ivan Van Sertima is widely renowned for his work, “They Came Before Columbus” Showed that there was definitely contact between the an-cient and early North and West African people with the early


Americans. This and another of his works, “African Presence in Early America” both prove that there were Moorish Islamic set-tlements in the Americas, before the expedition of Columbus was even conceived. His research has shown that Moorish trade was active in America and one can only imagine that the marvellous culture that the Native Americans had that shared so much with Islamic teachings was of great attraction to the Moors that came so far across the sea. (D) Booker T. Washington’s “Up from Slavery” In Chapter 6 Reads “an illustration of something of this same feeling came under my observation afterward. I happen to find myself in a town with so much excitement and indignation were being expressed that it seemed likely for a time that there would be a lynching. The occasion of the trouble was that a Dark-Skinned man had stopped at the local hotel. Further investigation developed the fact that this individual was a citizen of Morocco, and that while traveling in this country he spoke the English lan-guage. As soon as it was learned that he was not an American Ne-gro, all the signs of indignation disappeared. The man who was the innocent cause of the excitement, though, found it prudent after that not to speak English.” This incident is said to have took place in 1879. in Washington.(E) Estevanico or Esteban the Moor Estevanico or Esteban the Moor, a Muslim of the Amazigh Tribe, who came from Azamore on the Atlantic Coast of Morocco. He was among the first two persons to reach the west coast of Mex-ico in an exploring overland expedition from Florida to the Pacific Coast. It’s reported that Estevanico acted as a guide and it took them nine years to reach Mexico City where they told stories of their travels. In 1538, Estevanico lead an expedition from Mexico with Friar Marco, in search of the fabled Seven Cities of Cibolia, in which time he discovered Arizona and New Mexico. He was the first member of a different race reported to have visited the North Mexican Pueblos. He was killed in the city of Cibolia, one of the Seven Cities of the Zuni Indians, which is now New Mexico. Friar Marco, while following Estevanico’s trail to Cibolia, learned of his murder from an Indian messenger.

(F) “The Van Salees Family” Researched and Written by Mario de Valdes y Cocom, an historian of the African diaspora. Anthony and Abraham van Salee were the ancestors of the Vanderbilts, the Whitneys, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Humphrey Bogart. They were among the earliest arrivals to 17th century New Amsterdam. In a number of documents dating back to this period, they are both described as “mulatto”. From what scholars have been able to piece together about their background, they appear to have been the sons of a Dutch seafarer by the name of Jan Jansen who had “turned Turk” and become an admiral in the Moroccan navy. With the Port of Salee as the base from which it harried Eu-ropean shipping, references to the fleet he commanded are salted away in the old English sea shanties that are still sung about the Salee Rovers. The mother of his two sons was probably a concu-bine he had while trading in this part of the world before his con-version to Islam. As a result of the anti-social behaviour of his white wife, Anthony van Salee was induced to leave the city precincts of lower Manhattan and move across the river, thus becoming the first set-tler of Brooklyn. Since Coney Island abutted his property, it was, until sometime in the last century, also referred to as “Turk’s Is-land”; the word, “Turk”, being a designation of his which the re-cords used interchangeably with, “mulatto”. According to the doc-


umentation that people like Professor Leo Hershkowitz of Queens University have sifted through, it would seem that Anthony van Salee never converted to Christianity. His Koran, in fact, was in a descendant’s possession until about fifty years ago when, ignorant of its relevance to his family’s history, he offered it for sale at auc-tion. The Van Salee history also includes a more contemporary black collateral branch in the U.S. Anthony’s brother Abraham fathered an illegitimate son with an unknown black woman. The son became the progenitor of this side of the family. Although hav-ing to face constraints that their “white” cousins could at best only imagine, two of these van Salees nevertheless left their mark in the annals of African American history. Dr. John van Salee De Grasse, born in 1825, was the first of his race to be formally educated as a doctor. A member of the Medical Society of Massachusetts, he also served as surgeon to the celebrated 54th Regiment during the Civil War. His sister, Serena, married George Downing who was not only an enormously success-ful black restauranteur both in New York City and in Newport, RI, but a man who used his wealth and connections with the East Coast’s most powerful white families to effect social change for his people. Because of his organization and his own contribution to the purchase of Truro Park in Newport, one of the streets border-ing it still bears his name. Interestingly enough, this genealogy was done as part of an ongoing study of the Ramopo in Tappan, NY, one of those red, white and black groups sociologists and ethnog-raphers are now working on and which in academese are referred to as “tri racial isolates”. It is because of what advantages their Indian heritage (no matter how discernably negroid they were) le-gally and officially provided them that the opportunity for “pass-ing” in these groups was not only a more ambiguous political or moral decision but, comparatively, a more easily documentable one as well. Considering how important a role John Hammond of Co-lumbia Records played in the establishment of the black music industry, it would certainly be worth exploring the possible influ-ence his van Salee ancestry might have had on his career. Back then, there would have been no option possible for publicly de-claring himself black according to the “one drop” racial code that was the law in most states until the Johnson administration. With a Vanderbilt for a mother, his iconographical value to the white majority was so important that had he dared to tamper with it, the KKK or some such group would most probably have made him pay the ultimate price for having desecrated his and the prestige of his relatives who had, after all, fairly well succeeded in making them-selves the equivalent of this country’s royal family. Hammond died a few years ago but since his son, following in his father’s foot-steps, has become a recognized exponent of R&ampB his could prove to be a very important interview for us.

Jackie Kennedy OnassisEither Professor Hershkowitz, or Tim Beard, former head of the Genealogical Department of the New York Public Library related this incident regarding van Salee genealogy. At the time the Kenne-dy administration began implementing its civil rights agenda, the New York Genealogical and Historical Society approached Mrs. Kennedy hoping to discuss the opportunity her African ancestry, through the Van Salees, could have in possibly assisting her hus-band to realize his social goals regarding race relations. Mrs. Ken-nedy insisted on referring to the van Salees as ‘Jewish,’ and the New York Genealogical Society did not push the subject further. Humphry Bogart and Ruth Gordon in a scene from the 1927 film “Saturday’s Children.” He is a Van Salee descendent and she is a Pendarvis descendent. A few years later, another descendant


attempted to pass off the racial description of the van Salles in the official records as nothing more than malicious humor.

(207) Founders of the United States and their views on Islam Between these two religions, thus contrasted in the charac-ters, a war of more than twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extincture of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to pro-long the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute are encouraged to furnish motives to human action, there never can be peace on earth and good will toward men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him.” -Origi-nally published in The American Annual Register for 1827—1829 (NY 1830) “Muslims, in their efforts to conquer the world, occupied most of Spain and even invaded ancient France. Fortunately, there was a great white Christian leader, Charles Martel. He saved Civi-lization and the white race by defeating the Moors at the Battle of Tours in the year of our Lord 732 thus stopping the Islamic inva-sion of Europe. Later the Islamic Turks invaded white Christian Europe from the East. The Turks, under Suleiman the Magnifi-cent, got as far into the heart of Europe as the gates of Vienna be-fore they were stopped in 1529 A.D. In 1683 A.D., during the reign of Mohammed IV, they besieged Vienna again, but were soundly defeated by the great King John Sobieski in Poland, the hero of white Christiandom and perserver of civilization.(A) Lincoln Defends “Black Bill’ Among ten original Lincoln documents discovered last sum-mer in the DeWitt County Courthouse is a bond for costs in William Dungey v. Joseph Spencer. Written but not signed by Lincoln, it was part of an interesting slander case. Family disputes that degen-erated into slanderous, name-calling feuds frequently appeared in antebellum Illinois circuit courts. Such cases reflected the intent of American slander law to safeguard an individual’s good reputation in the community against petty character assassination. Abraham Lincoln realized the value of reputation, and declared in his first printed political speech that, “Everyman is said to have his pecu-liar ambition . . . I have no other so great as that of being truly esteemed of my fellow men. . . .”One unique slander case Lincoln argued at the DeWitt County Circuit Court, Clinton, Illinois, in the May and October 1855 terms involved much more than a defama-tion of character, and suggested that Huck Finn’s friend Jim might have reconsidered his plan of escape to freedom: “I reck’n’d at by fo’ in the mawnin’ I’d. . .slip in, jis b’fo daylight, en swim asho’ en take to de woods on de Illinois side.” In August 1851, William Dungey, a dark-skinned young man of Portuguese descent, married Joseph Spencer’s sister. A fam-ily quarrel ensued, which became so bitter that in January 1855, Spencer claimed throughout the community that his brother-in-law, “Black Bill,” was a Negro.Since 1819, Illinois laws permitted quasi-slavery and restricted the immigration of free blacks into the state. As other northern states passed personal liberty laws granting additional rights to free blacks, Illinois toughened its stance against them. The 1848 Illinois Constitution required the General Assembly to “pass such laws as will effectively prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this state. . . .” Those prohibitions were passed as the “Black Laws” and went into force on February 12, 1853, the future Emancipator’s forty-fourth birthday. William Dungey faced losing not only his reputation, but his marriage, property, and right to remain in Illinois. Section 10 of the 1853 law stated that, “Every person who shall have one-fourth negro blood shall be deemed a mulatto.” William Dungey retained


Abraham Lincoln to quash the possibility that he might be judged a “negro” and therefore suffer the severe penalties under the 1853 act. Lincoln filed his declaration charging Joseph Spencer with slander on April 17, 1855, and sought $1,000 in damages. A game of legal chess occurred during the first hearing in May. Spencer’s attorneys, Clifton H. Moore and Lawrence Weldon, filed a demur-rer to Lincoln’s declaration, asserting that his charges were in-sufficient in law. Judge David Davis agreed that two of Lincoln’s three charges were faulty. The case was continued and Lincoln was allowed to amend the declaration. At the next term of court, October 1855, the case was argued before a jury. According to Lawrence Weldon, Lincoln’s talents as a trial lawyer were evident in his argument for Dungey. Weldon stated that Lincoln questioned Spencer’s character by demonstrating how Spencer went from house to house “gabbing” that Dungey was a “nigger.” Weldon emphasized that Lincoln’s tone and pronuncia-tion had a “curious touch of the ludicrous. . . which, instead of de-tracting, seemed to add to the effect.”Lincoln further undermined Spencer by using humor to persuade the jury that there was rea-sonable doubt regarding Dungey’s race. Weldon recalled Lincoln’s statement: “My client is not a Negro, though it is a crime to be a Negro--no crime to be born with a black skin. But my client is not a Negro. His skin may not be as white as ours, but I say he is not a Negro, though he may be a Moore.” “Mr. Lincoln,” interrupted Judge Davis, scarcely able to restrain a smile, “you mean a Moor, not Moore.” “Well, your Honor, Moor, not C.H. Moore,” replied Mr. Lincoln, with a sweep of his long arm toward the table where Moore and I sat. “I say my client may be a Moor, but he is not a Negro.” Though the account may be apocryphal, Weldon’s recollec-tion was characteristic of Lincoln’s style.Lincoln then demolished the defendant’s witnesses’ testimony. Moore and Weldon had secured several depositions from residents in Giles County, Tennessee, the Dungey family home. These wit-nesses stated that they had personally known the family, and that the white community had regarded the Dungeys as “negro,” or of “mixed blood.” Under cross examination, Lincoln argued that the testimony was hearsay as the witnesses admitted none of them lived within 30 miles of the Dungey residence. On October 18, 1855, the jury returned a verdict of guilty and granted Dungey $600 in damages plus court costs of $137.50. Lincoln charged a $25 fee, which Lawrence Weldon considered minimal.To avoid an appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, Lin-coln persuaded Dungey to remit $400 of the judgment in return for the defendant releasing “all errors which may exist in the court record. . .” Under Illinois law, the defendant could not appeal the verdict, but could appeal only on errors of procedure or evidence. Lincoln had taught Joseph Spencer an expensive lesson in do-mestic relations. http://www.papersofabrahamlincoln.org/Briefs/briefs23.htm

(208) J.B. Stoner, the Archleader and Imperial Wizard of the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan addressed a letter to a gathering of Muslims in Convention in Chicago during February 1957. “America is a white Christian nation and no infidelic religion such as Islam, has a right to exist under the American sun. Your Islam, your Mohammedanism is not a white religion. Mohammedanism is a nigger religion. The white race will never accept it, so take it back to Africa with you. It is like the Holy Bible says about GOD’S plan for the nations of men in Acts 16:31 -- “And hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” Therefore you have no place in America with your African race or your Islamic African


religion. “The Christian Party becomes stronger every day. When we are elected to power we will legally drive you out. Remember 1492 A.D. when those two great white Christian monarchs, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, expelled the Muslims from Spain. The Christian Party will be even more ruthless. We will not tolerate your infidelic Christ-hating religion on American soil. We will drive Islam into the ocean. America isn’t big enough for the Christian Party and Black Islam, so Islam must go.”

(209) Trafficking, Peonage and Sale into involuntary servitude of Moorish Emir Abdul-Rahman from Timbo, Africa Abdul-Rahman was an Emir from West Africa who was forced into servitude in the United States. He was born in 1762 in Timbo, West Africa, present day Guinea. He was known as the “Prince of Slaves” or “Prince.” Ibrahim left Futa in 1774 to study in Mali at Timbuktu. Ibrahim was a leader of one of his father’s army divi-sions. After winning a battle against a warring nation, he took with him a few soldiers to report back to his father, when he was am-bushed, captured, and sold to slave traders in 1788 at the age of 26. He was bought by a Natchez, a Mississippi cotton plantation owner, and eventually became the overseer of the plantation of Thomas Foster. In 1794 he married Isabella, another slave of Foster’s, and eventually fathered a large family: five sons and four daughters. In 1828, he was freed after spending 40 years in slavery by the order of President John Quincy Adams and Secretary of State Henry Clay after the Sultan of Morocco requested his release. In 1826, Abd al-Rahman Ibrahim wrote a letter to his relatives in Africa. A local newspaper man, Andrew Marschalk, who was originally from New York, sent a copy to Senator Thomas Reed in Washington, who for-warded it to the U.S. Consulate in Morocco. Since Abdal-Rhaman Ibrahim wrote in Arabic, Marschalk and the U.S. government assumed that he was a Moor. After the Sultan of Morocco Abderrahmane read the letter, he asked Presi-dent Adams and Secretary of State Henry Clay to release Abd al-Rahman Ibrahim. Which is not surprising since the Sultans fore-fathers were known to the Crown of Great Britain as the “Ruler of All of West Africa” in which the Timbo, Almamate was a was a pre-colonial West African state based in the Fouta Djallon highlands of modern Guinea. In 1828, Thomas Foster agreed to the release of Ibrahim, without payment, with the stipulation that Ibrahim return to Africa and not live as a free man in America. Before leaving the U.S., Ibrahim and his wife went to various states and Washington, D.C. He solicited donations, through the press, personal appear-ances, the American Colonization Society and politicians, to free his family back in Mississippi. Word got back to Foster, who consid-ered this a breach of the agreement. Abdul-Rahman’s actions and freedom were also used against President John Quincy Adams by future president Andrew Jackson during the presidential election. The funds that Abdul-Rahman and Isabella raised bought the free-dom of two sons and their families. They were reunited with Isabella in Monrovia. Thomas Foster died the same year as Abdul-Rahman. Foster’s estate, in-cluding Abdul-Rahman’s other children and grandchildren, was divided among Foster’s heirs and scattered across Mississippi and the South. Abdul-Rahman’s descendants still reside in the United States. In the Book “The House at Sugar Beach by Helen Coo-per she notes that Abdul Rahman was on the that ship commis-sioned by the Freeman’s Bureau and notes a cause of his death. Her great- great grand father was paid by the bureau to supply him with provisions and supplies so he would have shelter during the rainy season but when they got to Liberia her grand father refused to give him anything telling Abdul-Rahman that he hadn’t been paid and Abdul-Rahman latter died of fever.


In 2006, Abdul-Rahman’s descendants gathered for a family reunion at Foster’s Field. He wrote two autobiographies. A draw-ing of him is displayed in the Library of Congress. In 1977, history professor Terry Alford documented the life of Ibn Sori in Prince Among Slaves, the first full account of his life, pieced together from first-person accounts and historical documents. In Prince Among Slaves, Alford writes: Among Henry Clay’s documents, for the year 1829 we find the January 1 entry, “Prince Ibrahima, an Islamic prince sold into slavery 40 years ago, and freed with the stipulation that he return (in this case the word “return” makes sense) to Africa, joined the black citizens of Philadelphia as an honored guest in their New Year’s Day parade, up Lombard and Walnut, and down Chestnut and Spruce streets.

(210) Clinton Alfred Weslager’s account of encounters with Moors and Nanticoke Indians by Clinton Alfred Weslager, John Swiento-chowski, L. T. Alexander. “There are clear distinctions made between Moors, Negros, Indians and White people. Following legendary recantations of a past Moorish Prince’s descendants marooned and rescued by In-dian women, C. A. W begins to piece together a purposely hidden history of a colony of Moors established in the lower Deleware val-ley centuries before the first prisoner of war ships arrived in what is known in the trans Atlantic slave trade.In regards to the origins of the Moors origins in America the author discredits a coloniza-tion theory due to insufficient historical data that states a group of Spanish Moors sailed to America before the revolutionary war to set up a colony. In 1921, the Delaware legislature voted to insert into the general code a provision for separate schools for white and black children. There was an exception for the State Board of Education to create schools for the children of people called Moors. No white or colored child was to be permitted to attend these schools without permission from the trustees of the school and the State Board of Education. An incident arose when the new Harmon school in Indian River Hundred was rebuilt and reclassified as a Moor school. The Indians could not understand why a school founded by an Incorporated body called the Warwick Indian school was being called a school for the Moors. The members of the incorpo-rated body considered themselves as Indian not Moors. They were willing to send their children to the school since Negros were to be excluded. Soon after the entire Indian student body was removed from the school and built their own school on land donated by Isaac Harmon’s son. Stating they were not Moors. The term had been used synonymously. From 1935 till today the State has paid teachers of Indian school with public funds. C.A. writes, “With the formation of the Nanticoke Indian Association (1921) under Dr. Speck’s guidance the school became the official organ of that institution and the building was taken over by it.” This replaced the Incorporated Body. The state of Delaware recognized the Incorporated Body as a group entitled to separate schools not as an Indian agency. Its members were known only as a certain class of colored persons. Meanwhile the Nanticoke Indian Association was chartered as an Indian tribal group and its members were listed as valid claimants to the Nanticoke Indian ancestry. Today, membership in the Nan-ticoke Association constitutes acceptable proof of Indian descent for a notary public. Later legislation acknowledged Nanticoke In-dian descendants within the state but not connected with the In-corporated Body.

(211) Transformations in schooling: historical and comparative perspectives” by Kimberley Tolley In the social construction of a biracial system set up Moors to be classified as outcasts in the two tier caste system. Many


Moors were not connected to the Americas through the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Many tribes of Moors and Indians traded, intermingled, intermarried amongst the groups. As the laws for North Carolina changed like the 1715 ban on miscegenation and the North Carolina constitutional amendments to adding the term colored and leaving out all reference to Indian or Moorish culture lumped Indian, blacks and Moors into the same category. The Lumbee Indians resisted being labeled black because not only did it make them lose their equal status with whites but it regulated them to second class citizenship. Later renamed Croatan Indians, regarded as descended from Raleigh’s lost colony of Croatan, for-merly classed with blacks, are now legally recognized as distinct. The author explores how these tactics work to segregate a people who if they worked together may make a difference in the order of the day white supremacy. Many Indian tribes as well as the Lumbee chose to segregate themselves from the blacks so if they couldn’t be white they could at least be Indian. The Lumbee pushed for legisla-tion to keep themselves separate from black people, they pushed for separate schools even for Lumbee Indians with a family name that was different from the known Lumbee family names (Smil-ings). In Robeson County the Smilings got their own school sepa-rate from the other Lumbee and the blacks in the county. through the schooling the laws were changed to make everybody colored then giving recognition to a few Indian tribes.

(212) Mitsawokett: The Moors of Delaware The origin of the Moors in Delaware is the question posed but unanswered in this collection of papers and quotes written by an unknown author. Mostly because exposing the truth about a people the writers consider “backwards” would expose origins that would contradict previously held notions. There are many efforts to discredit, minimize and erase Moors from history. The paper outlines some historical events such as in 1923 that Pierre Samuel DuPont financed the building of a three room schoolhouse to serve as the state-supported Cheswold School for the Moor children of grammar school ages until it closed in 1964. Indicating these Moors rejected the socio political constructs Ne-gro, black, or colored label. It was not until after the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education, that Moors were integrated into public schools. The social construction of a biracial system set up Moors to be classi-fied as outcasts in the two tier caste system. Many Moors were not connected to the Americas through the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Many tribes of Moors and Indians traded, intermingled, intermar-ried amongst the groups. As the laws for North Carolina changed like the 1715 ban on miscegenation and the North Carolina consti-tutional amendments to adding the term colored and leaving out all reference to Indian or Moorish culture lumped Indian, blacks and Moors into the same category. The Lumbee Indians resisted being labeled black because not only did it make them lose their equal status with whites but it regulated them to second class citizenship. Later renamed Croatan Indians, regarded as descended from Raleigh’s lost colony of Cro-atan, formerly classed with blacks, are now legally recognized as distinct. The author explores how these tactics work to segregate a people who if they worked together may make a difference in the order of the day white supremacy. Many Indian tribes in accordance with the Lumbee, chose to segregate themselves from the blacks so if they couldn’t be white they could at least be Indian. The Lumbee, pushed for legislation to keep themselves separate from black people push for separate schools for Lumbee Indians with a family name that was differ-ent from the known Lumbee family names (Smilings). In Robeson


County the Smilings got their own school separate from the other Lumbee and the blacks in the county. In Clinton Alfred Weslager’s account of encounters with Moors and Nanticoke Indians there are clear distinctions made be-tween Moors, Negros, Indians and White people. Following legendary recantations of a past Moorish Prince’s descendants marooned and rescued by Indian women, C. A. W begins to piece together a purposely hidden history of a colony of Moors established in the lower Delaware valley centuries before the first prisoner of war ships arrived in what is known in the trans Atlantic slave trade. In regards to the origins of the Moors origins in America the author discredits a colonization theory due to insufficient historical data that states a group of Spanish Moors sailed to America before the revolutionary war to set up a colony. In 1921, the Delaware legislature voted to insert into the general code a provision for separate schools for white and black children. There was an exception for the State Board of Education to create schools for the children of people called Moors. No white or colored child was to be permitted to attend these schools with-out permission from the trustees of the school and the State Board of Education. An incident arose when the new Harmon school in Indian River Hundred was rebuilt and reclassified as a Moor school. The Indians could not understand why a school founded by an incor-porated body called the Warwick Indian School was being called a school for the Moors. The members of the incorporated body considered themselves as Indian not Moors. They were willing to send their children to the school since Negros were to be excluded. Soon after the entire Indian student body was removed from the school and built their own school on land donated by Isaac Har-mon’s son. Stating they were not Moors. The term had been used synonymously. From 1935 till today the State has paid teachers of Indian school with public funds. C.A. writes, “With the formation of the Nanticoke Indian Association (1921) under Dr. Speck’s guidance the school became the official organ of that institution and the building was taken over by it.” This replaced the Incorporated Body. The state of Delaware recognized the Incorporated Body as a group entitled to separate schools not as an Indian agency. Its members were known only as a certain class of colored persons. Meanwhile the Nanticoke Indian Association was chartered as an Indian tribal group and its members were listed as valid claimants to the Nanticoke Indian ancestry. Today, membership in the Nan-ticoke Association constitutes acceptable proof of Indian descent for a notary public. Later legislation acknowledged Nanticoke In-dian descendants within the state but not connected with the In-corporated Body.

(213) Noble Drew Ali and the Moorish Science Temple of America

In 1913 Noble Drew Ali, born on January 8, 1886 in North Carolina, USA to the son of a Moroccan Muslim father and a Cher-okee mother. founded the Moorish Science Temple of America as an Islamic Corporation and incorporated under the Illinois Religious Corporation Act 805 ILCS 110,” the entity’s Form 1099 stares “all authority is derived from the Great Koran of Muhammad”. As Ali began his version of teaching the Moorish-Americans to become better citizens, he made speeches in which he urged them to reject derogatory Socio political constructs, such as “Black”, “colored”, and “Negro”. Despite Ali’s national origin and identity proclama-tions the State of Illinois listed him as an “American Black” on the death certificate issued for him instead of as a “Moorish Ameri-can” in 1929. During World War II, a faction of the Moorish Science Temple of America came to the attention of the FBI, who falsely


suspected the Moorish Americans of collaborating with Japan. De-spite their Corporate Identity and National Origin claims the FBI throughout their reports referred to them as Negroes and Blacks, as the Socio political construct African American was not com-monly used in or in existence as a common identity. These adher-ents also call themselves “indigenous Moors”, “American Moors” or “Moorish Americans” in contradistinction to “African Moors” or “African Americans”. The FBI created 3,117 page file on the Temple. They never found any evidence of any connection or much sympathy of the temple’s members for Japan.

(214) Southern Poverty Law Center Libel against Moors A once revered civil rights group named the Southern Pov-erty Law Center has become a threat to the freedoms and security of Moors in America due to their repeated slander and custom to classify Moors under the Socio political constructs African Ameri-cans or Blacks and their attacks on all First Amendment rights and their utter debasement of the political process. The Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Direc-tive 15, designates racial and ethnic categories used in the US Cen-sus and in other innumerable public and private research projects. According to a statement released by the American Anthropological Association (AAA), the US Government should phase out use of the term “race” in the collection of Federal data because the concept has no scientific justification in human biology. Due to the severity of the consequences of the SPLC’s ac-tions on our nation, their well funded and organized repeated at-tacks on Moorish-American freedoms of speech, the press, the right to peaceably assemble, and petition the government for a redress of grievances. ALIPAC has issued a national advisory to all local, state, and Federal law enforcement agencies and officers, along with all DHS Fusion Centers, a warning against any reliance upon faulty and politicized research issued by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and Anti Defamation League (ADL). March 26, 2009

(215) N.Y.P.D targets and slanders Moroccan-Americans in the Name of Homeland Security An article published 9/27/11 points out that the New York police watched Moroccan restaurants, gyms, barbershops, meat markets and taxi companies -- and compiled a list of every known Moroccan taxi driver. The AP reported on and dubbed the initia-tive “The Moroccan Initiative.” This police operation placed both Moroccan immigrants and Moorish-Americans under surveylance and scrutinized where they ate, prayed, and worked, not because of charges of wrongdoing but because of their ethnicity, the AP said. Authorities need evidence or mere suspicion of criminality before they can legally spy on people or groups, much less unleash a unit of the N.Y.P.D on an entire community. Such widespread N.Y.P.D spying on a particular ethnic group without such evidence or suspicion is against the law.

(216) Federal Directive 15 and ROCIC Despite, prohibition against National Origin Discrimination, the right to Dual Nationality or Dual Citizenship, Freedom of As-sociation, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Expression, the Right to Self Determination and archived Moorish Treaties, and the clear statement in about the socio political construct “African America or Blacks” in Federal Directive 15 “Race and ethnic standards for federal statistics and administrative reporting (as adopted on May 12, 1977)”, “These classifications should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature” Racial categories are inevitably problematic, because they are ostensibly biological, there supposed to be based on heritable physical characteristic like skin color-but fact are heavily cultural, as demonstrated by the “1 drop” rule in the 19th century U.S.


The Regional Organized Crime Information Center disemi-nated to Law enforcement agencies across the country a Slanderous Special Research Report titled “Moorish Nation Sovereign Citizen Movement.” The Report goes on to state “The Moorish Nation is a collection of sovereign citizen organizations, espousing the Is-lam religion, which emerged from the Moorish Science Temple of America (MSTA), founded in 1913 in the U.S. Adherents believe that African-Americans were descended from the Moors and have an inherited birthright to the land. These organizations make up what members refer to as the “Moorish Divine and National Move-ment of the World.” “Members consider themselves a free people under English “common law.” By claiming a Moorish Nationality, members al-legedly claim immunity from federal and state laws. Members of the Moorish Nation use this perceived immunity to justify their refusal to pay taxes, buy auto insurance,and defraud banks. Of-ficers conducting traffic stops may have encountered drivers with Moorish documentation, such as driver’s licenses, car registration, passports, and Social Security cards. Moors attempt to pass these documents as legal U.S. forms of identification [See Moorish Re-public Trust, page 9]. Several Moorish civic organizations have petitioned for recognition as a member nation of the United Nations. They base their claim for nationality on two treaties: the Moroccan/American Friendship Treaty of 1408, which protected Moors as citizens of Morocco. The Regional Organized Crime Information Center® is an organization composed of criminal justice agencies in the south-eastern and southwestern United States that has classified various publicly declared Moorish Subjects in the United States as Afri-can American Sovereign Citizens. ROCIC has been funded since its inception in 1973 by an annual grant through the U.S. Dept. of Justice. The Grantee is the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. ROCIC serves as a vehicle for the collection, evaluation, analy-sis, disemination, and storage of information regarding the multi-jurisdictional activities of the wide spectrum of organized crime. Member agencies, totaling 2,033 are represented throughout the 14 southeastern states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and comprise all levels of government - municipal, county, parish, judi-cial district, state, and federal. ROCIC operates under a Constitu-tion and By-Laws and is governed by a Board of Directors elected by delegations of criminal justice member agencies from each of the 14 states. Membership seminars are conducted three times a year throughout the region. ROCIC adheres to the Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating Policies.”

(217) Neo-Slavery In the past (slavery) as well as the present (today), the same remains. We are still enslaved, We are still stopped at gun point and asked to see our slave papers. If we do not have or those pa-pers are in any way not appeasing. We are beaten and killed or kidnapped and tortured. Douglas A. Blackmon brought to light one of the most shame-ful chapters in American history—when a cynical new form of slav-ery was resurrected from the ashes of the Civil War and re-imposed on hundreds of thousands of African-Americans until the dawn of World War II. Under laws enacted specifically to intimidate blacks, tens of thousands of African Americans were arbitrarily arrested, hit with outrageous fines, and charged for the costs of their own arrests. With no means to pay these ostensible “debts,” prisoners were sold as forced laborers to coal mines, lumber camps, brickyards, rail-roads, quarries and farm plantations. Thousands of other African Americans were simply seized by southern landowners and compelled into years of involuntary servitude. Government officials leased falsely imprisoned blacks


to small-town entrepreneurs, provincial farmers, and dozens of corporations—including U.S. Steel Corp.—looking for cheap and abundant labor. Armies of “free” black men labored without compensation, were repeatedly bought and sold, and were forced through beatings and physical torture to do the bidding of white masters for decades after the official abolition of American slav-ery. The neoslavery system exploited legal loopholes and federal policies which discouraged prosecution of whites for continuing to hold black workers against their wills. As it poured millions of dollars into southern government treasuries, the new slavery also became a key instrument in the terrorization of African Americans seeking full participation in the U.S. political system. Based on a vast record of original documents and personal narratives, SLAV-ERY BY ANOTHER NAME unearths the lost stories of slaves and their descendants who journeyed into freedom after the Emanci-pation Proclamation and then back into the shadow of involun-tary servitude. It also reveals the stories of those who fought un-successfully against the re-emergence of human labor trafficking, the modern companies that profited most from neoslavery, and the system’s final demise in the 1940s, partly due to fears of en-emy propaganda about American racial abuse at the beginning of World War II.

(218) “More African American men are in prison or jail, on probation or parole than were enslaved in 1850, before the Civil War began,” Michelle Alexander told a standing room only house at the Pasadena Main Library this past Wednesday, the first of many jar-ring points she made in a riveting presentation. Alexander, cur-rently a law professor at Ohio State, had been brought in to discuss her year-old bestseller, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. Interest ran so high beforehand that the organizers had to move the event to a location that could accom-modate the eager attendees. That evening, more than 200 people braved the pouring rain and inevitable traffic jams to crowd into the library’s main room, with dozens more shuffled into an overflow room, and even more latecomers turned away altogether. Alexander and her topic had struck a nerve. Growing crime rates over the past 30 years don’t explain the skyrocketing numbers of black — and increas-ingly brown — men caught in America’s prison system, accord-ing to Alexander, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun after attending Stanford Law. “In fact, crime rates have fluctuated over the years and are now at historical lows.” “Most of that increase is due to the War on Drugs, a war waged almost exclusively in poor communities of color,” she said, even though studies have shown that whites use and sell illegal drugs at rates equal to or above blacks. In some black inner-city communities, four of five black youth can expect to be caught up in the criminal justice system during their lifetimes.

TITLE III. TREATIES OF THE UNITED STATES

(301) A Moorish Nation was the first country to recognize the United States as a Nation Morocco was the first country in the world, to recognise the United States.On June 4th 2009 President Barack Obama, pub-licly announced and confirmed this in his first speech to the Arab and Muslim World at the University of Cairo,”The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco,” Obama said in a speech that he delivered Thursday from the University of Cairo. President Barack Obama has told other African leaders on July 9th 2009 it is time to stop blaming colonialism and “Western oppression”, President Obama, added: “I’d say I’m probably as knowledgeable


about African history as anybody who’s occupied my office. And I can give you chapter and verse on why the colonial maps that were drawn helped to spur on conflict, and the terms of trade that were uneven emerging out of colonialism. Moorish Treaty rights are certain rights that were reserved by the Moorish Sultans also referred to as Rulers of all of West Africa Muley Ishmael, Muley Abdellah Ben Ishmael, Sidi Mahomet Ben Abdellah, Moulay Sharif Abderrahmane signed treaties with Great Britain and the United States government. By signing trea-ties, things like protection (from attacks on their properties, indig-enous Culture, sovereignty and religious freedom were reserved). Because Article Six of the United States Constitution declares trea-ties to be the supreme law of the land, Moorish treaties are just as valid today as they were the day they were signed, and Moor-ish treaty rights are still legally binding as well. It is a common misperception that treaty rights are “special” rights given to allies by the government because of their political status, but this is not the case. The government does not “give” treaty rights to anyone – Moorish Sultans reserved them when they signed treaties in a government-to-government relationship. Indeed On February 20, 1778, Sultan Sidi Mohamed recog-nized the independence of the United States. Eight years later, on June 23, 1786, a friendship treaty between the two countries was concluded in Marrakesh, Morocco. Signed between Sultan Sidi Mohamed and the U.S. consul in Paris, Thomas Barclay. The treaty found its true meaning in 1797 when the first United States consul settled in Tangier. The Sultan issued a dec-laration on December 20, 1777, announcing that all vessels sail-ing under the American flag could freely enter Moroccan ports. The Sultan stated that orders had been given to his corsairs to let the ship “des Americains” and those of other European states with which Morocco had no treaties-Russia Malta, Sardinia, Prussia, Naples, Hungary, Leghorn, Genoa, and Germany-pass freely into Moroccan ports. There they could “take refreshments” and provi-sions and enjoy the same privileges as other nations that had trea-ties with Morocco. This action, under the diplomatic practice of Morocco at the end of the 18th century, put the United States on an equal foot-ing with all other nations with which the Sultan had treaties. By issuing this declaration, Morocco became one of the first states to acknowledge publicly the independence of the American Republic. On February 20, 1778, the Sultan of Morocco reissued his December 20, 1777, declaration. American officials, however, only belatedly learned of the Sultan’s full intentions. Nearly identical to the first, the February 20 declaration was again sent to all consuls and merchants in the ports of Tangier, Sale, and Mogador inform-ing them the Sultan had opened his ports to Americans and nine other European States. Information about the Sultan’s desire for friendly relations with the United States first reached Benjamin Franklin, one of the American commissioners in Paris, sometime in late April or early May 1778 from Etienne d’Audibert Caille, a French merchant of Sale. Appointed by the Sultan to serve as Consul for all the nations unrepresented in Morocco, Caille wrote on behalf of the Sultan to Franklin from Cadiz on April 14, 1778, offering to negotiate a treaty between Morocco and the United States on the same terms the Sultan had negotiated with other powers. The U.S. Government sent its first official communication to the Sultan of Morocco in December 1780. It read: We the Con-gress of the 13 United States of North America, have been informed of your Majesty’s favorable regard to the interests of the people we represent, which has been communicated by Monsieur Etienne d’Audibert Caille of Sale, Consul of Foreign nations unrepresented


in your Majesty’s states. We assure you of our earnest desire to cultivate a sincere and firm peace and friendship with your Majesty and to make it lasting to all posterity. “Should any of the subjects of our states come within the ports of your Majesty’s territories, we flatter ourselves they will receive the benefit of your protection and benevolence. You may assure yourself of every protection and assistance to your subjects from the people of these states whenever and wherever they may have it in their power”. We pray your Majesty may enjoy long life and uninterrupted prosperity.

(302) Letter from George Washington to Muhammed Ibn Abdullah - Sultan of Morocco

December 1st, 1789Great 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 in-stitute 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 disarrangement’s 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 ex-pect. The United States, having unanimously appointed me to su-preme executive authority in this Nation. Your Majesty’s letter of August 17, 1788, which by reason of the dissolution of the late-gov-ernment 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 acknowledge-ments 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 re-moved, on terms of our power to comply with. Within our territo-ries there are no mines, whether 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 be-come 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 oc-casion of convincing Your Majesty of the high sense (which in com-mon with the whole nation) I entertain the magnanimity, wisdom and benevolence of Your Majesty. May the Almighty bless Your Im-perial Majesty, our Great and Magnanimous friend, with His con-stant guidance and protection - George Washington


(303) 1836 Treaty of the United States The first (1786-1787) treaty was updated in 1836 in Me-knes, Morocco, under the reign of Sultan Moulay Abderrahmane. President Adams’ signing statement: John Adams, President of the United States of America, stated that the (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary may be observed and performed with good faith on the part of the United States and required that all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States and all others citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill said Treaty and every clause and article thereof. By the end of the 19th century, the United States officially and solemnly declared solidarity with Morocco against the colonial intentions of certain European powers. To this end, President Theodore Roo-sevelt took a number of initiatives by refusing to recognize the French protectorate on Morocco. The United States kept, there-fore, the specific rights provided for by the 1836 treaty.

(304) Convention of Madrid, concluded July 8, 1880

It was established by the Convention of Madrid, concluded July 8, 1880, as follows:

Article XV. Any subject of Morocco who has been naturalized in a for-eign country, and who shall return to Morocco, shall, after having remained for a length of time equal to that which shall have been regularly necessary for him to obtain such naturalization, choose between entire submission to the laws of the Empire and the obliga-tion to quit Morocco, unless it shall be proved that his naturaliza-tion in a foreign country was obtained with the consent of the Gov-ernment of Morocco. Foreign naturalization heretofore acquired by subjects of Morocco accordIng to the rules established by the laws of each country, shall be continued to hetm as regards all its effects without any restriction. The above ruling has never yet been acted upon, and should this at any time be contemplated seri-ously, a large number of naturalized people, American and others, residing in Morocco, would be affected thereby. (4 and 5) Residence in foreign parts does not affect the na-tionality of Moorish subjects, and the Moorish Government has no means of protecting its subjects permanently residing in other countries, with the exception of a so-called Moorish consul at Gi-braltar and a Moorish agent at Cairo, Egypt. I am, etc.,

(a) Extraterritoriality United States - Morocco Under bilateral treaties, European consuls obtained both almost complete jurisdiction over the persons and properties of their own nationals, and the right to offer this protection to any-one they employed. These persons were not subject to local law and were exempt from all personal or direct taxation or forced levies. Foreign consuls found the selling of protection an excellent way to augment their incomes. As early as 1859, the Moroccan government demanded more careful regulation of the protector-ate system. Complaints were also voiced against the unwarr...an-ted interference by consuls in the local courts. Efforts to remedy the situation were made in 1877, when the sultan sought to limit and control the extent of foreign protectorate claims, and to ob-tain the return to Moroccan jurisdiction of Moroccan subjects who, after naturalization in a foreign country, had returned to live in Morocco. But the discussions with the diplomatic corps brought no agreement, and the United States, while expressing its willingness to remedy the abuses, insisted that naturalized citizens were equal to native-born citizens, and therefore not subject to Moroccan jurisdiction if they returned to that coun-try.


At the Conference of Madrid in 1880, protectorates were the main item on the agenda. Britain favored conceding to Moroccan demands, whereas France urged that no abridgment be made on the right of protection. The conference adopted the French point of view, and the Convention of Madrid not only validated the protectorate system but also, by clarifying, defining, and legalizing the situation, strengthened it by converting the for-mer bilateral treaties and simple consular agreements into an international convention. After the Madrid Convention an orgy of protection selling began, and the protection problem became linked to political penetration.

TITLE IV. LEGISLATION: STATE, FEDERAL AND INTERNATIONAL

(401) Virginia General Assembly Act of 1670 In 1670, Virginia General Assembly 1682, (c. 1. Purv. 282). Act declared who will be slaves, excluding Turks & Moors, whose countries were in amity with the King of England. Page 491 of Virginia General Assembly 1733 and 1752 records. The Great planters in 1682 repealed the 1670 act that made Indians and oth-ers free.” Still suspicious about the status of enslaved Indians fol-lowing Bacon’s Rebellion (1676) and cognizant of enslaved Chris-tians’ suits for freedom, the legislators refined the religious and geographic rationale of the 1670 act. During Bacon’s Rebellion, the assembly had allowed soldiers to enslave Indian captives as spoils of war, coining these practices in 1679 as the right of “free purchase.” According to the 1682 statue, non Christian origins were predicate of enslavement. Any Captives: whose parentage and native country are not Christian at the time of their first purchase,” were enslaved for life, as were Africans and Indians “taken in warre.” The status of Muslims was qualified. Turks and Moors were exempted from slavery “whilst in amity with his majesty,” but Muslims from African nations not recognized by the crown could be enslaved. The act was principally aimed at black converts, however. The new law as clear: conversion to Christi-anity alone did not warrant freedom for the enslaved. The new stipulations would percent both “great loss and damage” to own-ers and “great discouragement” to merchants “bringing in such slaves for the future”.

(402) Virginia General Assembly Act of 1682, c. 1. Purv. 282 1682, c. 1. Purv. 282. ‘An act to repeal a former law, mak-ing Indians and others free,’ is the law on which the defendants rely for their title. It recites and repeals the act of 1670, which made temporary servants only of Indians taken in war by other Indians, our neighbors and confederates, as this act calls them, and sold to the English; and then enacts that ‘all servants except Turks and Moors, whilst in amity with his Majesty, which from and after the publication of this act, shall be brought or imported into this country. This being either by sea or land, whether Negroes, Moors, Mulattoes, or Indians, who, and whose parents and native country were not Christians, at the time of the first purchase of such servants by some Christian, although afterwards and before such their importation and bringing into this country, they shall be converted to the Christian faith, and all Indians which shall here-after be sold by our neighboring Indians, or any other trafficking with us and for slaves, are hereby adjudged, deemed and taken, and shall be adjudged, deemed and taken to be slaves.’ This act by making slaves of the Indians taken in war, and sold by our friendly Indians, who 112 * by the act of 1670, were only tempo-rary servants, put such friendly Indians, as to their captures,- on a footing with our own soldiers, whose captives were slaves by the act of 1679. The act of 1682, c. 1, repealed the act of , 1670, c. 12, and provided that all servants (except Turks and Moors whilst in


amity with the king) which should afterwards be imported, either by sea or land, whether Negroes, Moors, Mulattoes or Indians, who and whose parentage and native country were not Christian, at the time of the purchase of them by some Christian, though such servants were, afterwards and before importation, converted to Christianity, and all Indians, which should thenceforward be sold by our neighboring Indians, and others trafficking with us, as for slaves, should be slaves to all intents and purposes; Id. p. 491. But, by the acts of 1677, c. 3, and 1680, c. 9, a. free and open trade was allowed, at all times and places, for all persons, with friendly Indians/ Id, p. 410, 490, and by the act of 1698, c. 9, the several acts restraining trade with Indians, were repealed; and thenceforth a free and open trade was allowed, for all persons, at all times and at all places, with all Indiana whatsoever; and the same provision was re-enacted by the act of 1705, c. 52, § 12. 3 Id. p. 69, 468. These acts have had a most important influence on the decision of claims to freedom of the descendants of Indians field in slavery, and are therefore here noted.

(403) Virginia General Assembly Act of October 1705

An act concerning Servants and Slaves October 1705 - 4th Anne.CHAP. KLIX. 3.447.The act of 1705, C. 49, which is re-en-acted by the acts 1748, and 1756 declare?, “ that all servants, imported and brought into this country by sea or land, who “were not Christians in their native country, (except Turks and “Moors in amity with his majesty and others that can make “due proof of their being free in England, or in any Other “Christian coun-try before they were shipped in order for trans’” portion hither,) shall be accounted and be slaves, and as “such, be bought and sold^ notwithstanding * conversion to “Christianity.” The 1705 Act XLIX was incorporated in the 1792 Act Chapter 67. Shepherd Samuel, ed., The Statues at Large of Va., VOL. 1, P. 181. IV. And also be it enacted, by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, That all servants imported and brought into this country, by sea or land, who were not Christians in their na-tive country, (except Turks and Moors in amity with her majesty, and others that can make due proof of their being free in England, or any other Christian country, before they were shipped, in order to transportation hither) shall be accounted and be slaves, and as such be here bought and sold notwithstanding a conversion to Christianity afterwards… XI. And for a further Christian care and usage of all Chris-tian servants, Be it also enacted, by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, That no Negros, mulattos, or Indians, although Christians, or Jews, Moors, Mahometans, or other infidels, shall, at any time, purchase any Christian servant, nor any other, ex-cept of their own complexion, or such as are declared slaves by this act: And if any negro, mulatto, or Indian, Jew, Moor, Maho-metan, or other infidel, or such as are declared slaves by this act, shall, notwithstanding, purchase any Christian white servant, the said servant shall, ipso facto, become free and acquit from any service then due, and shall be so held, deemed, and taken: And if any person, having such Christian servant, shall intermarry with any such negro, mulatto, or Indian, Jew, Moor, Mahometan, or other infidel, every Christian white servant of every such person so intermarrying, shall, ipso facto, become free and acquit from any service then due to such master or mistress so intermarrying, as aforesaid…

(404) Virginia General Assembly Act of the act of 1748, c. 14. Revisal

of 1748, The act of 1748, c. 14. Revisal of 1748, pa. 285. lasted of the words all servants imported,’ substitutes all persons who have been or shall be imported;’ an alteration of few words Indeed, but


of most extensive barbarity. It has subjected to slavery the free inhabitants of the two continents of Asia and Africa (except of the small parts of them inhabited by Turks and Moors in amity with England) and also the Aborigines of North and South imported *and brought into this country by sea or land, who were not Chris-tians in their native country, (except Turks and Moors in amity with her Majesty, and others that can make due proof of their be-ing free in England, or any other Christian country, before they were shipped, in order to transportation hither) shall be account-ed and be slaves, and as such, be here bought and sold, notwith-standing a conversion to Christianity afterwards.’ And it repeals all other acts so far ‘as they relate to servants and slaves, or to any matter or thing whatsoever, within the purview of this act.’ II. But if this law had possessed any original validity, it would have been repealed, or, which is the same in effect, rendered useless by the act of 1684. The describing words of the act of 115 *1682, are, ‘servants hereafter brought or imported by sea or land, whether Negroes, Moors, Mulattoes, or Indians, and all Indians which shall hereafter be sold by our neighbor Indians, or any other trafficking with us, as and for slaves.’ To come within this description, then, they must be servants at the time they are imported or sold by our neighboring Indians as slaves. Now servants they could not be in their own country, for it is notorious there is no such thing as ser-vitude known among any of the Indian tribes. Even their captives in war, they either adopt into their families to supply the place and represent the person of some relation lost in the war, or make them free members of their country, or kill them. As little could they be servants among our southern neighbors of Carolina; for till the year 1715, they had no slave law there, nor yet in Maryland. And since they could come to us no other way, it is plain they could not be servants at the time of their coming. Nor must it be supposed the legislature, by the other of the alternative de-scriptions, ‘sold as slaves,’ intended to create a servitude which did not exist before; for by these words they mean to include only those who may be legally so sold. We cannot suppose they intended to give their sanction to the sale of an Indian as a slave, whom the person selling had no authority so to sell. It was a daring act of injustice, worse than murder, in the vendor; can we believe the legislature meant to become his accomplices? The question then is who were those Indians who might be legally sold as slaves? For they are the persons whose slavery is confirmed by this act. The answer is. Those who were or should be taken under the act of *1679, the only act which had given any person authority to sell Indians as slaves, and therefore the only sales the act of 1682 meant to confirm. If there be any doubt of this, the preamble of 1682, will confirm it. It consists of three members; the 1st. recites the act of 1670; the 2nd. shows in what manner it bore 116 on the *purchasers of Negroes, Moors and Mulattoes; the 3rd. member of the preamble shows how it affected the purchasers of the Indi-ans described in the same act 1679, and then goes on to enact. So that the preamble proposes the subject of the act, to wit, Negroes, Moors, Mulattoes, and the Indians of l679.

(405) The act of Massachusetts on 26th of March, 1788 The Act of Massachusetts on 26th of March, 1788, ch. 21 of Feb. 1788 Sess., Mass. Acts & Laws 680, 682 (1788); reprinted as ch. 54, 1787 Mass. Acts 62 (rev. ed. 1893). This Act was repealed 1834, in the course of a general revision of the law of correctional institutions. The Act of March 29, 1834 Mass. Acts 206 provided that “ no person being an African or Negro, other than a subject of the Emperor of Morocco, or a citizen of some one of the United States...shall tarry within this commonwealth, for a longer time than two months”.


(406) South Carolina. March 3, 1753 - History Muslims from North Af-rica, appear in the records of South Carolina Council Journal South Carolina. March 3, 1753 - History Muslims from North Africa, appear in the records of South Carolina Council Journal, No. 21, Pt. 1, pp. 298-299. Two Moors by the name Abel Conder and Mahamut (Mahomet) petitioned the South Carolina royal au-thorities in Arabic for their freedom.

(407) South Carolina. March 3, 1753 - History Muslims from North Africa, appear in the records of South Carolina Council Journal The Statutes at Large of South Carolina No. 1544: Acts re-lating to Charleston, courts. By South Carolina, Thomas Cooper An Act To Prohibit The Importation Of Slaves From Africa, Or Other Places Beyond Sea, Into This State, For Two Years \ And Also To Prohibit The Importation Or Bringing In Slaves, Or Ne-groes, Mulattoes, Indians, Moors Or Mestizoes, Bound For A Term Of Years, From Any Of The United States, By Land Or By WA-TER.” I. Be it therefore enacted, by the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives, now met and sitting in General Assem-bly, and by the authority of the same, That no slave shall be im-ported into this State from Africa, the West India Islands, or other place beyond sea, for and during the term of two years, commenc-ing from the first day of January next, which will be in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-three. III. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any slave or negro, Indian, Moor, mulatto or mestizo, bound to service for a term of years, shall be imported or brought into this State, contrary to the true intent and meaning of this Act, such slave or slaves, negro, Indian, Moor, mulatto or mestizo, shall be deemed and taken as a forfeiture to the State; one third part of whose value shall be paid to the person or persons making information of such importation or bringing in; and the person or persons importing or bringing in such slave or slaves, negro, In-dian, Moor, mulatto or mestizo, contrary to the intent and mean-ing of this Act, shall, moreover, be subject to a penalty of fifty pounds for every slave or negro, Indian, Moor, mulatto or mestizo, so brought in.

(408) The Statutes at Large of South Carolina No. 1605.

An Act To Revive And Extend An Act Entitled “An Act To Prohibit The Importation Ok Slaves From Africa, Or Other Places Beyond Sea, Into This State, For Two Years; And Also, To Prohibit The Importation Or Bringing In Of Negro Slaves, Mulattoes, Indi-ans, Moors Or Mestizoes, Bound For A Term Of Years, From Any Of The United States, By Land Or Water.”

(409) The Statutes at Large of South Carolina No. 1814

An Act To Alter And Amend The Several Acts Respecting The Importation Or Bringing Into This State, From Beyond Seas, Or Elsewhere, Negroes And Other Persons Of Colour And For Other Purposes Therein Mentioned.

(410) The Statutes at Large of South Carolina No. 2107

An Act To Prohibit The Importation Of Slaves Into This State From Any Of The United States And For Other Purposes Therein Mentioned.


An Act To Amend An Act Entitled “An Act To Prohibit The Importation Of Slaves Into This State From Any Of The United States; And For Other Purposes Therein Mentioned.”


An Act More Effectually To Prevent Free Negroes And Other Persons Of Color From Entering Into This State; And For Other Purposes.



An Act The More Effectually to Prohibit Free Negros And Persons Of Color From Entering Into This State; And For Other Purposes.


An Act To Amend “an Act The More Effectually To Pro-hibit Free Negroes And Persons Of Coler From Entering Into This State; And For Other Purposes.” WHEREAS, many colored persons from the northern states and elsewhere, have arrived in the ports and harbours of this Slate, under pretence of their being descended from free Moors, Indians and Lascars on both father’s and mother’s side, bringing with them certificates and papers purporting that they are of such descent, when on inspection they appear to be mulattoes or Mes-tizoes, by means of which false papers many persons of color are introduced into this State, contrary to the intention of the Act in such case made and provided.

(415) On January 20, 1790, a petition was presented to the South Carolina House of Representatives From a group of eight individuals who were subjects of the Moroccan emperor and residents of the colony. They desired that if they happened to commit any fault amenable to be brought to justice, that as subjects to a prince allied with the United States through the Moroccan-American Treaty of Friendship, they would be tried as citizens instead of under the Negro Act. The Free Moors, Francis, Daniel, Hammond and Samuel petitioned on behalf of themselves and their wives Fatima, Flora, Sarah and Clarinda. They explained how some years ago while fighting in defense of their country, they and their wives were captured and made prisoners of war by the Portuguese. After this a certain Cap-tain Clark had them delivered to him, promising they would be redeemed by the Moroccan ambassador residing in England, and returned to their country. Instead, he transported them to South Carolina, and sold them. Since then, “by the greatest industry,” they purchased freedom from their respective masters. They re-quested that as free born subjects of a Prince in alliance with the U.S., that they should not be considered subject to a State Law (then in force) known as the negro law. If they be found guilty of any crime or misdemeanor, they would receive a fair trial by lawful jury. The matter was referred to a committee consisting of Justice Grimke, General Charles Pinckney and Edward Rutledge. Free Moors Petition: Ruling Edward Rutledge reported from the committee referred to the Free Moors petition. The order was for immediate consideration of the matter was read and agreed to as follows Viz: “They have Considered the same and are of opinion that no Law of this State can in its Construction or Operation ap-ply to them, and that persons who were Subjects of the Emperor of Morocco being Free in this State are not triable by the Law for the better Ordering and Governing of Negroes and other Slaves. “In 1792 the South Carolina legislature passed a law which stopped the importation of slaves in the state. One provision stated that Moors could not be bound for terms of years of service and could not be brought into South Carolina from other states in the Union either by land or sea. During this same year the South Carolina legislature enacted a law regulating their immigration or by the law of 1792, the legislature declared that no Moors bound to ser-vice for a term of years should be brought into the state by land or water from any other state.


(416) Legislative Journal - House - Page 5759 Resolution No. 75 May 4, 1933 On May 4,1933 Legislative Journal - House - Page 5759. Resolution No. 75 was Adopted Mr. Witkin, Mr. Speaker, I de-sire at this time to call up Resolution No. 75, Printer’s No. 1034. The Resolution was read by the Clerk as follows: In the House of Representatives, April 17, 1933. Many sons and daughters of that proud and handsome race which inspired the architecture of Northern Africa and carried into Spain the influence of its artistic temperaments have become citizens of this Nation. In the City of Philadelphia there exists a Moorish-American Society made up of Moors who have found here the end of their quest for a home and of the children of those who journeyed here from the plains of Morocco. This Society has done much to bring about a thorough absorption by these people of those principles which are necessary to make them good American citizens. These Moorish-Americans have since being here missed the use of the titles and name an-nexations that were so familiar at home and which are used in ac-cordance with the doctrines of the religious faith to which they are adherents therefore be it, Resolved That this House commends the Moorish American Society of Philadelphia for the efficient service it has rendered the Nation in bringing about a speedy and thorough Americanization of these former Moors and that in accordance with the fullest right of religious independence guaranteed every citizen we recognize also the right of these people to use the name affixes El or Ali or Bey or any other prefix or suffix to which they have heretofore been accustomed to use or which they may hereafter acquire the right to use.

(417) SSA PR 09-168 Request for Regional Chief Counsel Opinion on State Law Recognition of Moorish A~ Marriages Ref: 09-0190 ID 475971 https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/1502705039 DATE: September 4, 2009 1. SYLLABUS A Moorish A~ Af-fidavit of Marriage/Domestic Partnership document would be rec-ognized as a valid marriage document only if the participants also obtained a marriage license from the State in which the marriage took place, and the marriage was properly solemnized under State law. If the applicants and the celebrant do not acquire the appro-priate licenses, Ohio would not recognize the Affidavit as a mar-riage document. Ohio does not recognize domestic partnership as an alternative to marriage.

2. OPINIONYou asked whether Ohio would recognize a Moorish A~ Affidavit of Marriage/Domestic Partnership as a marriage record. You also asked whether the other states in Region V would recognize a simi-lar document as a marriage record. We conclude that the states in Region V would recognize the Moorish A~ Affidavit as a record of a valid marriage as long as the participants also obtained a marriage license from the state. Given the confusion and blurring between the religious and the pseudo-governmental aspects of Moorish Sci-ence, we recommend that SSA request evidence of a marriage li-cense whenever an individual is relying on a Moorish document as a marriage record. In the particular case you submitted for our review, it appears that a marriage license was not obtained for the Moorish marriage ceremony, and therefore the Affidavit should not be considered a marriage document for purposes of a name change.

DISCUSSIONI. Documentary Evidence for SSN Card Based on Change of Name.

SSA requires an applicant for a Social Security Number (SSN) card to provide documentary proof of his/her identity, so that SSA can ascertain that the person is who he/she claims to be, and that he/she


is the person to whom SSA originally assigned the SSN. POMS RM 00203.200(A), (C)(2). Following passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA), Pub. L. 108-458, SSA developed standards to verify documents or records submit-ted by applicants to establish eligibility for original or replacement SSN cards. These standards took the form of priority lists of docu-ments that are considered acceptable evidence of identity. POMS RM 00203.200(B). The priority is based on (1) the applicant’s age; (2) the applicant’s citizenship or alien status; and (3) the relative probative value of the documents. POMS RM 00203.200(B)(1). Ap-plicants are required to submit the document with the highest pro-bative value that is reasonably available. POMS RM 00203.200(B)(2). “Available” means that the document exists and the applicant can obtain or gain access to it within 10 business days. POMS RM 00203.200(E)(6)(3). For United States citizens aged 18 or older, an unexpired driver’s license, non-driver identity card, or passport is considered primary evidence of identity. POMS RM 00203.200(E)(6)(1). When a number holder (NH) applies for a replacement SSN card to reflect a name change, the NH must submit at least one name change document that identifies him/her by both old and new name. POMS RM 00203.210(A)(1). The name change document must also show either an identifiable description or photograph of the person, or biographical data such as the age, date of birth, or parents’ names that can be compared with data that SSA already has about the NH. POMS RM 00203.210(A)(1). Generally, when the name change document lacks a photograph, description or bio-graphical data, the NH must submit two additional identity docu-ments listed in RM 00203.200(E), one with the old name, the other with the new name. POMS RM 00203.210(A)(1). A marriage document is generally acceptable secondary evi-dence of identity for a legal name change if the document shows not only the applicant’s name, but also has either a photograph or biographical information such as his or her age, date of birth, or parents’ names, as long as the biographical information matches the data on the applicant’s latest record, and the marriage took place within the last two years. POMS RM 00203.200(E)(6)(2), (H)(2); POMS RM 00203.210(B)(1); POMS EM-06064(A)(1)-(3). If the marriage document does not meet these criteria, the marriage document may serve as evidence of the new name, but the appli-cant must also submit an identity document in the old name. POMS EM-06064(A)(3). The identity document in the old name must be acceptable under the priority lists in POMS RM 00203.200(E). See POMS EM-06064(A)(3). A driver’s license is considered primary evidence of identity. POMS RM 00203.200(E)(6)(1). SSA recognizes that some states permit a married couple to take an entirely new surname. POMS RM 00203.210(B)(1)(d). When the new surname can be derived from the marriage docu-ment, the marriage document alone can be taken as evidence of identity for both the old and new names. POMS RM 00302.210(B)(1)(d), POMS EM-06064(A)(2). When the new name cannot be de-rived from the marriage document, the marriage document can be accepted as evidence of the event for the name change, and may be accepted as evidence of the old name if the document also in-cludes appropriate biographical data, but cannot be accepted as evidence of identity for the new last name. POMS RM 00203.210(B)(1)(d), POMS EM-06064(A)(2). The applicants must submit an ad-ditional identity document showing the new last name. POMS RM 00203.210(B)(1)(d), POMS EM-06064(A)(2). For all documents, SSA policy is that a document should be verified with the issuing agency if there is any reason to suspect that the document is questionable. POMS RM 00203.050. Any document “issued by a fictitious governmental organiza-tion or a private organization that purport (sic) to be governmental


organizations” is considered questionable. POMS RM 00203.200(F)(2)(c). The POMS expressly lists the Moorish Consulate and Moor-ish National Bureau of Vital Statistics as examples of entities pur-porting to be governmental organizations whose identity documents are considered questionable. POMS RM 00203.200(F)(2)(c). Such documents are not individually acceptable as identity documents, but are considered potentially useful to support secondary or ap-proved third-level documentary evidence. POMS RM 00203.200(F)(2)(c) (NOTE).However, while the Moorish Republic may be a fictitious govern-ment, federal courts have recognized that Moorish Science and the MSTA is “a bona fide religion.” Johnson-Bey v. Lane, 863 F.2d 1308, 1309 (7th Cir. 1988). The Seventh Circuit has recognized that some adherents of Moorish Science espouse the belief that, as Moorish nationals, they are not bound by the laws of the United States unless those laws are expressly mentioned in a 1784 treaty between the United States and M~ co. United States v. James, 328 F.3d 953, 954 (7th Cir. 2003); see also www.moorishrepublic.com/Nationalitylaws.htm. The court also observed that, under some Moorish Science religious beliefs, “any adherent may adopt any title, and issue any documents, he pleases.” Id. Ohio has appar-ently licensed some Moorish ministers to perform marriages in the state. See http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/recordsindexes.aspx.II. Ohio Would Recognize the Moorish A~ Affidavit Only If the Marriage Was Properly Solemnized under Ohio Law.

Under the POMS, a marriage document is acceptable secondary evidence to support a change of name on an NH’s SSN card. POMS RM 00203.200(E)(6)(1); POMS RM 00203.210(B)(1); POMS EM-06064(A)(1)-(3). An identity document issued by a fictitious gov-ernmental organization is not. POMS RM 00203.200(F)(2)(c). A document like the Moorish A~ Affidavit at issue in this case creates tension between these provisions, because while SSA may properly recognize groups such as the “Moorish Consulate” or “Moorish Re-public” as fictitious governmental organizations that federal law does not recognize, federal law does recognize Moorish Science as a real religion, not a fictitious one, and SSA must treat it and respect it as such. Distinguishing between a Moorish group’s religious and pseudo-governmental aspects is complicated because the group it-self may not recognize any distinction between the two. (For exam-ple, the Moorish Divine National Movement of the MSTA considers itself both a “Jural Society” and a “Religious Society.” See www.motheriscalling.com/THEMOVEMENT.html.) In the case at issue here, the applicants sought replacement SSN cards, with both of them taking on an entirely new surname. It appears that Ohio would permit couples to assume an entirely new surname when they marry. See POMS PR 05005.039 (citing In re B~, 771 N.E.2d 846, 848 (Ohio 2002). In support of their applications to change to this new name, the couple in this case submitted the Moorish A~ Affidavit, which contains both applicants’ old and new names, but not the type of biographical data described in the POMS (i.e., age, date of birth, or parents’ names, which could be compared to the Numident re-cord). See POMS RM 00203.200(E)(6)(2), (H)(2)(a). When the name change document does not include such biographical data, the applicant may submit an identity document with the old name in addition to the marriage document, and in such cases the mar-riage document will be considered the identity document for the new name, and the identity document for the old name will link the applicant to the old name on the Numident. EM 06064(A)(3). Here, the applicants also submitted Ohio driver’s licenses as evidence of their old names, so the lack of biographical information that would link them to the pre-marital name is satisfied.


It is not as clear whether the marriage document (assum-ing it qualifies as a marriage document) would be sufficient evi-dence of the new name requested, since the parties are requesting an entirely new surname. Agency policy suggests that a marriage document is generally not sufficient evidence of a name change if the parties are seeking an entirely new name that is not derived from the document. See EM 06064(A)(2) & attached table. A name is generally considered to be derived from the document if one spouse is taking the other spouse’s last name, or a compound name of each spouse’s original name is being adopted by one or both parties. Id. However, this policy is apparently based on the as-sumption that the marriage document would not otherwise reflect the new name, if the name is not derived from the parties’ pre-marital names. See EM 06064(A)(2) (assuming that entirely new name would not be shown on the marriage document); POMS RM 00203.210(D)(5) (explaining that marriage document would not generally support a name change to an entirely new name because the document “does not show the newly chosen surname”). Here, however, the document shows both the parties’ old names and the new surname that they intend to use. Therefore, if the Moorish A~ Affidavit qualifies as a marriage document from a ceremonial United States marriage, the applicants have arguably submitted sufficient documents to show identity. However, if the Affidavit does not qualify as a marriage document, it may be used to sup-port other evidence of a name change, but is not acceptable by itself. The Moorish A~ Affidavit has several indicia of a ceremo-nial marriage document. The fourth affirmation states that the parties “mutually consent and agree to be married as husband and wife.” The sixth affirmation also refers to “our marriage,” and the seventh affirmation identifies the applicants, under their new sur-name, as “husband and wife.” The applicants signed the Affidavit in the blanks for “husband’s signature” and “wife’s signature.” The Affidavit has a signature line for the “person solemnizing or performing Marriage.” That person gives his title as “Grand Gov-ernor,” which is a common title for the leader of an MSTA temple. Other aspects of the Moorish A~ Affidavit are more ambigu-ous. Despite references to marriage on the Affidavit, the title sug-gests that the certificate could serve either as a marriage document or as a domestic partnership document. Ohio does not recognize domestic partnership as an alternative to marriage. Ohio Const. § 11, Art. XV. In addition, the Affidavit makes several references to Moorish National status, Moorish law, and the Moorish Repub-lic. However, unlike the MSTA Certificate of Religious Creed that applicant Y~-E~ signed in 2004, the Affidavit contains no men-tion of the MSTA, or any other overtly religious group or society. The person who signed the Affidavit as the “person solemnizing or performing marriage” with the title “Grand Governor” signed the Certificate of Religious Creed as “Grand Elder in Islam.” Al-though “Grand Governor” is a common title for the leader of an MSTA temple, it is unclear whether the MSTA would recognize him as having governmental – or, from SSA’s point of view, pseudo-governmental – authority, as opposed to clerical or religious au-thority. The Affidavit meets all of Ohio’s requirements for witness-ing. In addition, because Ohio recognizes the MSTA as an Islamic sect, see Abdullah v. Fard, 974 F. Supp. 1112, 1114 (N.D. Ohio 1997), the Ohio Secretary of State would have to give a recognized MSTA temple leader a license to solemnize marriages if he pre-sented the appropriate credentials. It appears that the Affidavit was filed with the Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds, which Ohio requires from the person who officiated over the marriage. Thus, Ohio would recognize the Moorish A~ Affidavit as a mar-


riage document as long as the applicants obtained a marriage li-cense, and the person who solemnized the marriage had a license to do so. If the applicants and the celebrant did not acquire the appropriate licenses, Ohio would not recognize the Affidavit as a marriage document. In this case, our search of Ohio public records indicated that the person who signed the Affidavit as the “person solemnizing or performing marriage” apparently did not have a li-cense to solemnize marriages. See http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/recordsindexes.aspx. In addition, while our search suggested that the applicants obtained a marriage license, the license was not used for a marriage by the MSTA. Rather, the Ohio records indicate that the license was used for a marriage in a Baptist church several days after the date on the Affidavit, and the marriage license was filed by a licensed Baptist minister. Therefore, we believe that under the facts of this case, Ohio would not recognize the Affidavit as a mar-riage document. Ordinarily, under the procedures set forth in the POMS for changing Numident name data, SSA does not investigate ceremonial marriage documents to assess the validity of the marriage. How-ever, given the well-documented history of Moorish groups acting in both a bone fide religious and a pseudo-governmental capacity, Moorish documents like the Affidavit in this case may be considered sufficiently ambiguous that it would seem reasonable for SSA to re-quest that a marriage license also be provided, to ensure that the document relates to a state-recognized marriage, and is not merely a document issued under the authority of the Moorish pseudo-gov-ernment. See POMS RM 00203.050. SSA may wish to modify the procedures governing accept-able evidence so that where a marriage document appears question-able, the person processing the enumeration may ask the applicant if he or she obtained the requisite state marriage license. In some cases, as in Ohio, it may be easy to verify whether an applicant ob-tained a marriage license, or whether the person who celebrated the marriage was appropriately licensed. However, given the variety of Moorish groups, it seems likely that SSA will have to assess docu-ments purporting to be Moorish or MSTA marriage records on a case-by-case basis. It is possible that some Moorish temples may em-ploy a certificate where it is clear from its face that it constitutes an acceptable ceremonial marriage document. Other documents may be ambiguous, like the Affidavit, or clearly unacceptable.

III. Other States in Region V Would Also Consider Moorish Docu-ments to Be Marriage Documents Only If the Parties Obtained a License for the Marriage.

The same tension between the religious and pseudo-governmental aspects of Moorish Science that applies in Ohio also applies in Il-linois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Each state re-quires couples to obtain a marriage license, and requires that the license be filed with the appropriate state official after the mar-riage. See 750 ILCS 5/201, 5/203 5/209; Ind. Code 31-11-4-1, 31-11-4-3, 31-11-4-13, -16; Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 551.2, 551.101, 551.104, 551.107; Minn. Stat. Ann §§ 517.01, 517.07; Wisc. Stat. §§ 765.05, 765.12, 765.19, 765.20(1). It seems likely that all of the states in Region V would accept a document like the Affidavit as evidence of a valid marriage as long as the marriage was properly licensed, sol-emnized and registered. As noted above, given the difficulty in de-termining whether a Moorish marriage document may have been is-sued as part of a religious ceremony with a proper marriage license issued by the state, or whether the document was issued pursuant to pseudo-governmental authority, it would seem reasonable for SSA to request a marriage license in the case of Moorish marriages to determine whether the state recognizes the marriage.


CONCLUSIONIn sum, we conclude that in all states in Region V, a Moorish mar-riage document like the Affidavit in this case would be recognized as a valid marriage document only if the participants also obtained a marriage license from the state in which the marriage took place, and the marriage was properly solemnized in accordance with state law. Since it is generally unclear from the face of such a document whether it is a ceremonial marriage record of a licensed marriage, we recommend that SSA request a marriage license to determine whether the document can be considered a marriage document for purposes of a name change. In this case, our research suggests that the document was not issued in conjunction with a marriage license, and would not constitute a marriage document for pur-poses of the name change request. However, we recommend that you verify this for the record.

Donna L. C~Acting Chief Counsel, Region V

By: Julie L. B~ Assistant Regional Counsel

(418) U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted May 20, 1996. Filed May 29, 1996. 86 F.3d 1159 es. No. 95-2549. As noted in Federal Cases United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted May 20, 1996. Filed May 29, 1996. 86 F.3d 1159 Moorish Science Temple Of America, Inc.; Frank Apple-white; Curtis Owen, Appellants, v. Dennis Benson, Warden; Steve Hokonson, Chaplain, Appellees. No. 95-2549. The Record Shows: A member is not to go into court to have a name change, because he or she is not changing their name. They are proclaiming some-thing you always have been by being born a Moorish American. One is to do all new business in the name of El or Bey, and put their nationality down or make it known, when and where it is called for. The Eighth Circuit commentary: “With respect to the Moors’ claims regarding the name-change policy, we affirm.”

(419) Federal court case Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366 U.S. 187 (1961) As set forth in federal court case Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366 U.S. 187, 81 S. Ct. 922, 6 L. Ed. 2d 218 (1961) “A state cannot refuse to give foreign nationals their treaty rights because of fear that valid international agreements may possibly not work com-pletely to the satisfaction of state authorities.”

(420 Moorish Treaty rights encompass universal human rights and fundamental freedoms articulated in numerous international instru-ments, including (a)Treaties Between Great Britain & Tripoli, Algeria, Morocco and Tunis(b)Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who are not Nationals of the Country in which They Live,(c)The Universal Declaration of Human Rights(d)The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Helsinki Accords,(e)The Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination, (f)The United Nations Charter, the Law of Nations,(g)The Vienna Conventions (h)The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,(i)United Nations Economic and Social Council Commission On Human Rights Civil And Political Rights Fifty-sixth session Item 11 of the provisional agenda Human rights and arbitrary depriva-tion of nationality Report of the Secretary-General.(j)International Religious Freedom Act of 1998(k)United Nations Charter, a treaty ratified by the United States,


is part of the supreme law of this land. U.S. v. Steinberg, N.D. III. 1979, 478 F. Supp. 29 See also Balfour, Guthrie & Co., Limited, v. U.S., D.C. Cal. 1950, 90 F. Supp. 831. International Law.

(421) Codified International obligations of the United States Congress has codified International obligations of the Unit-ed States, specifically in United States Code Title 11 Chapter 15 Sub-chapter I § 1503. Furthermore, Congress denounced acts of national origin discrimination through the adoption of the follow-ing resolutions:Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 To work with State governments that affirm and protect treaty rights in order to develop multilateral documents and initia-tives to combat violations of treaty rights throughout the United States.(1)To be vigorous and flexible, reflecting both the unwavering com-mitment of the United States to Moorish Treaty Rights and the de-sire of the United States for the most effective and principled re-sponse, in light of the range of violations of Moorish treaty rights by a variety of persecuting regimes, and the status of the relations of the United States with the Moorish Empire.(2)To work with State governments that affirm and Protect Moor-ish treaty rights, in order to develop multilateral documents and initiatives to combat violations of Moorish treaty rights and pro-mote the treaty rights abroad.(3)Standing for liberty and standing with the persecuted, and dis-criminated to use and implement appropriate tools in the United States foreign policy apparatus, including diplomatic, political, commercial, charitable, educational, and cultural channels, to promote respect for Moorish treaty rights by all governments and peoples.

(422) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Done at Vienna on 23 May 1969. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Done at Vienna on 23 May 1969. The States Parties to the present Convention, Considering the fundamental role of treaties in the history of inter-national relations, Recognizing the ever-increasing importance of treaties as a source of international law and as a means of developing peaceful cooperation among nations, whatever their constitutional and social systems, Noting that the prin-ciples of free consent and of good faith and the pacta sunt servanda rule are universally recognized, Affirming that disputes concern-ing treaties, like other international disputes, should be settled by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, Recalling the determination of the peoples of the United Nations to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties can be main-tained, Having in mind the principles of international law embod-ied in the Charter of the United Nations, such as the principles of the equal rights and self-determination of peoples, of the sovereign equality and independence of all States, of non-interference in the domestic affairs of States, of the prohibition of the threat or use of force and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, Believing that the codification and progressive development of the law of treaties achieved in the present Convention will promote the purposes of the United Nations set forth in the Charter, namely, the mainte-nance of international peace and security, the development of friendly relations and the achievement of cooperation among na-tions, Affirming that the rules of customary international law will continue to govern questions not regulated by the provisions of the present Convention, have agreed as follows:


(423) United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on 13 September 2007 “Recognizing also the urgent need to respect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples affirmed in treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements with States”.(a)Article 37 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of In-digenous Peoples Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on 13 September 2007 (b)“Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, obser-vance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other construc-tive arrangements concluded with States or their successors and to have States honour and respect such treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.” (c) Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as diminishing or eliminating the rights of indigenous peoples contained in trea-ties, agreements and other constructive arrangements. The Draft Declaration was then referred to the Commission on Human Rights, which established another Working Group to examine its terms. Over the following years this Working Group met on 11 occasions to examine and fine-tune the Draft Declaration and its provisions. Progress was slow because of certain states’ concerns regarding some key provisions of the Declaration, such as indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination and the control over natural resources existing on indigenous peoples’ traditional lands. The final version of the Declaration was adopted on 29 June 2006 by the 47-member Human Rights Council (the successor body to the Commission on Human Rights), with 30 member states in favour, two against, 12 abstentions, and three absentees. The Declaration was then re-ferred to the General Assembly, which voted on the adoption of the proposal on 13 September 2007 during its 61st regular session. The vote was 143 countries in favour, four against, and 11 abstaining. The four member states that voted against were Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, all of which have their origins as colonies of the United Kingdom. On 16 December 2010, Presi-dent Obama declared that the United States is going to sign the declaration.

(424) Article 1 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, entry into force 23 March 1976, 1. All peoples have the right of self-determination Article 1 of The International Covenant on Civil and Po-litical Rights, entry into force 23 March 1976, 1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. 2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources with-out prejudice to any obligations arising out of international eco-nomic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence. 3. The States Parties to the present Cov-enant, including those having responsibility for the administra-tion of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

(425) Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who are not Nationals of the Country in which They Live Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who are not Nationals of the Country in which They Live, G.A. res. 40/144, annex, 40 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 53) at 252, U.N. Doc. A/40/53 (1985). The General Assembly, Considering that the Charter of the United Nations encourages universal respect for and observance of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all human beings,


without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion, Consider-ing that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in that Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, Considering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims further that everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person be-fore the law, that all are equal before the law and entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law, and that all are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of that Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimi-nation, Being aware that the States Parties to the International Covenants on Human Rights undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in these Covenants will be exercised without discrimi-nation of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, po-litical or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, Conscious that, with improving communications and the development of peaceful and friendly relations among countries, individuals increasingly live in countries of which they are not nationals, Reaffirming the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, Recognizing that the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms provided for in interna-tional instruments should also be ensured for individuals who are not nationals of the country in which they live, Proclaims this Dec-laration:(1) Article 1 of the Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who are not Nationals of the Country in which They Live, G.A. res. 40/144, annex, 40 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 53) at 252, U.N. Doc. A/40/53 (1985). “For the purposes of this Declaration, the term “alien” shall apply, with due regard to qualifications made in subsequent articles, to any individual who is not a national of the State in which he or she is present.”(2) Article 5 (1) of the Declaration on the Human Rights of Indi-viduals Who are not Nationals of the Country in which They Live, G.A. res. 40/144, annex, 40 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 53) at 252, U.N. Doc. A/40/53 (1985). “Aliens shall enjoy, in accordance with domestic law and subject to the relevant international obligation of the State in which they are present, in particular the follow-ing rights: (a) The right to life and security of person; no alien shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention; no alien shall be deprived of his or her liberty except on such grounds and in ac-cordance with such procedures as are established by law; (b) The right to protection against arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence; (c) The right to be equal before the courts, tribunals and all other organs and authorities administering justice and, when necessary, to free assistance of an interpreter in criminal proceedings and , when prescribed by law, other proceedings; (d) The right to choose a spouse, to marry, to found a family; (e) The right to freedom of thought, opinion, con-science and religion; the right to manifest their religion or beliefs, subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; (f) The right to retain their own language, culture and tradition; (g) The right to transfer abroad earnings, savings or other personal monetary assets, sub-ject to domestic currency regulations.”(3) Subject to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society to protect national security, public safety, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and which are consistent with the other rights recognized in the relevant international instruments and those set forth in this Declaration, aliens shall enjoy the following


rights: (a) The right to leave the country; (b) The right to freedom of expression; (c) The right to peaceful assembly; (d) The right to own property alone as well as in association with others, subject to domestic law. 3. Subject to the provisions referred to in paragraph 2, aliens lawfully in the territory of a State shall enjoy the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose their residence within the borders of the State. 4. Subject to national legislation and due authorization, the spouse and minor or dependent children of an alien lawfully residing in the territory of a State shall be admitted to accompany, join and stay with the alien.(4)Article 8 (1) of the Declaration on the Human Rights of Indi-viduals Who are not Nationals of the Country in which They Live, G.A. res. 40/144, annex, 40 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 53) at 252, U.N. Doc. A/40/53 (1985). “Aliens lawfully residing in the territory of a State shall also enjoy, in accordance with the national laws, the following rights, subject to their obligations under article 4: (a) The right to safe and healthy working conditions, to fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinc-tion of any kind, in particular, women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work; (b) The right to join trade unions and other organiza-tions or associations of their choice and to participate in their ac-tivities. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those prescribed by law and which are necessary, in a democratic society, in the interests of national security or public order or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others; (c) The right to health protection, medical care, social security, so-cial services, education, rest and leisure, provided that they fulfil the requirements under the relevant regulations for participation and that undue strain is not placed on the resources of the State. 2. With a view to protecting the rights of aliens carrying on lawful paid activities in the country in which they are present, such rights may be specified by the Governments concerned in multilateral or bilateral conventions.

(426) General Recommendation XXX Discrimination Against Non Citizens General Recommendation XXX Discrimination Against Non Citizens: The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimina-tion, Recalling the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, according to which all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and are entitled to the rights and freedoms enshrined therein without distinction of any kind, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Recalling the Durban Declaration in which the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimina-tion, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, recognized that xeno-phobia against non-nationals, particularly migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers, constitutes one of the main sources of contempo-rary racism and that human rights violations against members of such groups occur widely in the context of discriminatory, xeno-phobic and racist practices, Noting that, based on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and general recommendations XI and XX, it has become evident from the ex-amination of the reports of States parties to the Convention that groups other than migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers are also of concern, including undocumented non-citizens and persons who cannot establish the nationality of the State on whose territory they live, even where such persons have lived all their lives on the same territory, Having organized a thematic discussion on the issue of dis-crimination against non-citizens and received the contributions of members of the Committee and States parties, as well as contribu-


tions from experts of other United Nations organs and specialized agencies and from non-governmental organizations, Recognizing the need to clarify the responsibilities of States parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination with regard to non-citizens,

Basing its action on the provisions of the Convention, in particular article 5, which requires States parties to prohibit and eliminate discrimination based on race, colour, descent, and national or eth-nic origin in the enjoyment by all persons of civil, political, eco-nomic, social and cultural rights and freedoms,Affirms that:I. Responsibilities of States parties to the Convention1.Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention defines racial discrimi-nation. Article 1, paragraph 2 provides for the possibility of differ-entiating between citizens and non-citizens. Article 1, paragraph 3 declares that, concerning nationality, citizenship or naturalization, the legal provisions of States parties must not discriminate against any particular nationality;2.Article 1, paragraph 2, must be construed so as to avoid under-mining the basic prohibition of discrimination; hence, it should not be interpreted to detract in any way from the rights and freedoms recognized and enunciated in particular in the Universal Declara-tion of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;3.Article 5 of the Convention incorporates the obligation of States parties to prohibit and eliminate racial discrimination in the enjoy-ment of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. Al-though some of these rights, such as the right to participate in elec-tions, to vote and to stand for election, may be confined to citizens, human rights are, in principle, to be enjoyed by all persons. States parties are under an obligation to guarantee equality between citi-zens and non-citizens in the enjoyment of these rights to the extent recognized under international law;4.Under the Convention, differential treatment based on citizen-ship or immigration status will constitute discrimination if the cri-teria for such differentiation, judged in the light of the objectives and purposes of the Convention, are not applied pursuant to a le-gitimate aim, and are not proportional to the achievement of this aim. Differentiation within the scope of article 1, paragraph 4, of the Convention relating to special measures is not considered dis-criminatory;5.States parties are under an obligation to report fully upon legis-lation on non-citizens and its implementation. Furthermore, States parties should include in their periodic reports, in an appropri-ate form, socio-economic data on the non-citizen population within their jurisdiction, including data disaggregated by gender and na-tional or ethnic origin;

(427) Articles 5 of the Adopted and proclaimed by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Or-ganization at its twentieth session, on 27 November 1978 Declara-tion on Race and Racial Prejudice Articles 5 of the Adopted and proclaimed by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cul-tural Organization at its twentieth session, on 27 November 1978 Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1982/2/Add.1, annex V (1982).The mass media and those who control or serve them, as well as all organized groups within national commu-nities, are urged-with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, particularly the principle of freedom of expression-to promote understanding, tolerance and


friendship among individuals and groups and to contribute to the eradication of racism, racial discrimination and racial prejudice, in particular by refraining from presenting a stereotyped, partial, unilateral or tendentious picture of individuals and of various hu-man groups. Communication between racial and ethnic groups must be a reciprocal process, enabling them to express themselves and to be fully heard without let or hindrance. The mass media should therefore be freely receptive to ideas of individuals and groups which facilitate such communication. article 5 from the declaration of race and racial prejudice. Article 7 of the Adopted and proclaimed by the General Con-ference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization at its twentieth session, on 27 November 1978 Decla-ration on Race and Racial Prejudice, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1982/2/Add.1, annex V (1982).In addition to political, economic and social mea-sures, law is one of the principal means of ensuring equality in dig-nity and rights among individuals, and of curbing any propaganda, any. form of organization or any practice which is based on ideas or theories referring to the alleged superiority of racial or ethnic groups or which seeks to justify or encourage racial hatred and discrimination in any form. States should adopt such legislation as is appropriate to this end and see that it is given effect and applied by all their services, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Such legislation should form part of a political, economic and social framework conducive to its implementation. Individuals and other legal entities, both public and private, must conform with such legislation and use all appropriate means to help the population as a whole to understand and apply it.

(428) Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to Nation-al or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities, G.A. res. 47/135, annex, 47 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 210, U.N. Doc. A/47/49 (1993).1. Persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities (hereinafter referred to as persons belonging to minori-ties) have the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and prac-tise their own religion, and to use their own language, in private and in public, freely and without interference or any form of dis-crimination.2. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to participate ef-fectively in cultural, religious, social, economic and public life.3. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to participate ef-fectively in decisions on the national and, where appropriate, re-gional level concerning the minority to which they belong or the re-gions in which they live, in a manner not incompatible with national legislation.4. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain their own associations.5. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain, without any discrimination, free and peaceful contacts with other members of their group and with persons belonging to other minorities, as well as contacts across frontiers with citizens of other States to whom they are related by national or ethnic, re-ligious or linguistic ties.

(429) Executive Order 13107 December 10, 1998 Executive Order 13107 the White House Office of the Press Secretary December 10, 1998 Section 1. Implementation of Human Rights Obligations. (a) It shall be the policy and practice of the Government of the United States, being committed to the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, fully to


respect and implement its obligations under the international hu-man rights treaties to which it is a party, including the ICCPR, the CAT, and the CERD.(b) It shall also be the policy and practice of the Government of the United States to promote respect for international human rights, both in our relationships with all other countries and by work-ing with and strengthening the various international mechanisms for the promotion of human rights, including, inter alia, those of the United Nations, the International Labor Organization, and the Organization of American States. Sec. 2. Responsibility of Executive Departments and Agen-cies. (a) All executive departments and agencies (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 101-105, including boards and commissions, and hereinaf-ter referred to collectively as “agency” or “agencies”) shall main-tain a current awareness of United States international human rights obligations that are relevant to their functions and shall perform such functions so as to respect and implement those obli-gations fully. The head of each agency shall designate a single con-tact officer who will be responsible for overall coordination of the implementation of this order. Under this order, all such agencies shall retain their established institutional roles in the implementa-tion, interpretation, and enforcement of Federal law and policy. Sec. 6. Judicial Review, Scope, and Administration. (c) The term “treaty obligations” shall mean treaty obligations as ap-proved by the Senate pursuant to Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the United States Constitution.

(430) Title 22 Chapter 32 Subchapter II Part I Human rights and security assistance 22 USC § 2304. Human rights and security assistance (a) Observance of human rights as principal goal of foreign policy; implementation requirements (1) The United States shall, in ac-cordance with its international obligations as set forth in the Char-ter of the United Nations and in keeping with the constitutional heritage and traditions of the United States, promote and encour-age increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the world without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. Accordingly, a principal goal of the foreign policy of the United States shall be to promote the increased observance of internationally recognized human rights by all countries. Human rights and security assistance (a) Observance of human rights as principal goal of foreign policy; implementation requirements (1) The United States shall, in accordance with its international obligations as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and in keeping with the constitutional heritage and tradi-tions of the United States, promote and encourage increased re-spect for human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the world without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. Accordingly, a principal goal of the foreign policy of the United States shall be to promote the increased observance of internation-ally recognized human rights by all countries.

(431) Citizenship of the United States, expatriation, and protection abroad By United States. Dept. of State, James Brown Scott, Da-vid Jayne Hill, Gaillard Hunt The fundamental Laws of this non-Christian country [Unit-ed States] are based entirely upon the Islamitic code, no part of which treats of the subject of citizenship. There are, however, numerous treaties and conventions between the various Christian countries and the Moorish Empire, by means of which citizenship in this country is defined; but, as I understand, from the above-acknowledged instructions, that it is not the desire of the Depart-ment to call for a report upon such lines, I will therefore confine these remarks to general conditions existing, which may possibly


be of some use in connection with the information desired.(1) Citizenship in Morocco may be said to be governed by the laws pertaining to the same in other countries, with the exception that all persons residing in Morocco who can not prove foreign citizen-ship or protection are considered ipso jure as Moorish subjects.(2 and 3) Moorish subjects lost their nationality only by becoming naturalized in, or protected by, another country having treaty re-lations with the Moorish Empire.

TITLE V. APOLOGIES AND DECLARATIONS

(501) Apologies from Spain to Moors and Jews In 1992 there was an apology issued by the Spanish authori-ties to the Jews (Sephardic) from Spain presented to the president of Israel, which was 500 years after their expulsion from Andalu-sia. An apology was issued to the Moors February 2002. Their ex-pulsion came February 14, 1502 after a treaty of capitulation was signed by Abou Abdellah, Isabella and Ferdenand on November 25, 1491. The Moroccan historian Mohamed Ben Azzouz Hakim published the letter addressed to His Majesty Juan Carlos I, King of Spain, asking him to present apologies to the Moors who were expelled from Andalusia. He recalled the fact that if the Moors missed getting their apologies in 1992, when the Spanish authori-ties apologized to the Jews on the occasion of the fifth centenary of the discovery of the American Continent coinciding with the an-niversary of the expulsion of the Jews by virtue of a decision dated 31 March 1492, the fifth centenary anniversary of the decision to expel Moors that was issued on 14 February 1502 came in February 2002. The Moroccan historian said that the Spanish King had pre-sented his apologies regarding the Jews to the President of Israel and it is also excepted from him to present his apologies to the King of Morocco in a ceremony to be organized in Granada, as its Moor-ish inhabitants were the first to be expelled and as the majority of the Moors who were expelled from Andalusia have chosen Morocco for residence as did their King Abdellah Bnou Al Ahmar, the last King of Granada.

(502) Moroccan Historian Letter The Moroccan historian enclosed this letter with the capitu-lation treaty that was signed by Abou Abdellah along with Isabel and Fernando of Spain on 25 November 1491. The treaty con-tained an express promise to respect the traditions of those Moors who chose to remain in Granada and not to violate their civil rights as recognition of their right to remain in their land just as Moorish Kings did with the Christians and the Jews who were living in the Moorish areas of Spain. This discussion was prompted by the pub-lic ceremony of apology presented to the Jews… Against the trea-ty,” Queen Isabel ordered to expel the Moors of Granada by her decision dated 14 February 1502. Two years later, the same Queen issued her testament on 12 October 1504, saying that the war of re-covery (Reconquista) did not end with the collapse of Granada, but would only be complete by chasing those who were expelled into the resettlement land chosen by their majority, that is Morocco.” Most Moors relocated to Morocco as did the King Abdellah Bnou Al Ah-mar, the last King of Granada. The Moroccan historian Mohamed Ben Azzouz Hakim published the letter addressed to His Majesty Juan Carlos I, King of Spain, asking him to present apologies to the Moors who were expelled from Andalusia. Foreigner Law (Ley de Extranjeria) in force in Spain presently, gives Sephardic Jews like citizens of Latin America and citizens of Portugal, Philippines, Equatorial Guinea, Andorra and Gibraltar the right to a better treatment; which means that the grandsons of Andalusian Moors are excluded when they have the same connection to Spain as the rest of them. There was some armed resistance in Albaicin and


Alpujarras. In Chapter 54 of the Don Quijote de la Mancha of the Spanish novelist Miguel de Cervantes, in a character dialog between an expelled Moor and a valet where the valet expressed sorrow behind the Moor be-ing expelled. One interesting note, is that the Moor’s new home Germany practiced religious freedom. While he was settled into his new home he was longing to return to his homeland. Moors who stayed and renounced Islam and became Christians often had to pay more for their baptisms than ear-lier converters. There was armed revolutions in Granada 1568, that lead to full expulsion after the 1570 through 1582 Protestants and Moors against the Catholics resistance. Felipe III decided to enforce such decision in Aragon, Valencia and all the other provinces. In Chapter 54 of the Don Quijote de la Mancha of the Spanish novel-ist Miguel de Cervantes, there is a dialog between Sancho Banza, Don Qui-jote’s valet, and one of the Moors who were definitively expelled during the years 1609-1610. He said that he had been to France, Germany and North Africa, but he returned to dig out a treasure containing all his valuable savings. During this dialog, Ricote, name of the Moorish above mentioned, says that after the decision of the King “against our nation”, we scattered in many countries and could not be fairly treated anywhere. However, he noted that Germany is characterized by tolerance as the freedom of reli-gion is guaranteed there. In this Chapter of the Novel, Sancho Banza said that he cried when the Moors were expelled. He apologized for not helping him to dig out the treasure, but he would not inform the authorities about him as a sign of compassion.

(503) Christianity and Citizen Synonymous This is an expression of homesickness while talking about belonging to a different “nation.” The Moorish evoked the fact that he belongs to a different nation even though he said that he is Christian and despite his recognition that his wife and his daughter are more Christian than he was. He made this statement to show his right to return, which means that his motivations are profoundly nationalistic. Sancho Banza also gave a clear image of human solidarity with regard to the hardships of the Moors. It is worth noting that Cervantes wrote his novel in 1615, and this chapter was issued in the second edition, which means after ten years of the final expulsion of the Moors; when speaking about belonging to another nation despite conversion to Christianity. Cervantes evokes the issue of religion and national identity. The word “faithful” (creyente), that is Christian, as noted by Ameri-co Castro, was in the XV century the equivalent of the word “citizen” in the XVIII century, considering the fact that the State at that time was based upon religion. Thus, the identity issue here may lead to various confusions, while the solidarity shown by Sancho to Ricote is coming out of neutral human feelings. On the other hand, the fact that Ricote, who converted to Christianity, feels at the same time his being part of another nation is an expression of the Nation as a cultural and racial content.

(504) Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis, Department of Biology On December 13th, 2006 the Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis, Department of Biology, University of Oslo, Blindern released findings of Human mitochondrial DNA diversity in an archaeological site in al-Andalus, concluding the genetic impact of migrations from North Africa in medieval Spain. Mitochondrial DNA sequences and restriction fragment polymorphisms were retrieved from three Islamic 12th to 13th century samples of 71 bones and teeth (with >85% efficiency) from Madi-nat Baguh (today called Priego de Córdoba, Spain). Compared with 108 saliva samples from the present population of the same area, the medieval samples show a higher proportion of sub-Saharan African lineages that can only partially be attributed to the historic Muslim occupation. In fact, the unique sharing of transition 16175, in L1b lineages, with Europeans, instead of Africans, suggests a more ancient arrival to Europe from Africa. The present-day Priego sample is more similar to the current south Iberian population than to the medieval sample from the same area. The increased gene flow in modern times could be the main cause of this difference.


(505) Congress Apologizes for Slavery on Thursday June 19, 2009 the U.S. Senate apologized for slavery Congress Apologizes for Slavery on Thursday June 19, 2009 the U.S. Senate apologized for slavery, making it the second body in Congress to approve such a measure. The vote comes a year af-ter the U.S. House of Representatives apologized for slavery. The unanimous vote by the upper chamber of Congress also came one day before many African Americans commemorate Juneteenth, the day when word finally reached slaves in Galveston, Texas that the Civil War and slavery had ended. The resolution says that “the legacy of African-Americans is interwoven with the very fabric of the democracy and freedom of the United States” but recalls that “millions of Africans and their descendants were enslaved in the United States and the 13 American colonies from 1619 through 1865.” The resolution admits that Africans were “forced into slav-ery” where they were “brutalized, humiliated, dehumanized, and subjected to the indignity of being stripped of their names and heri-tage.” And it acknowledges that many enslaved families were “torn apart after family members were sold separately.” Although the resolution decries the “visceral racism against people of African descent” that became “enmeshed in the social fabric of the United States,” the nonbinding measure does not authorize reparations for descendants of African American slaves. “Nothing in this reso-lution authorizes or supports any claim against the United States or serves as a settlement of any claim against the United States,” the resolution states. The failure to permit reparations is all the more stunning considering the resolution specifically admits that descendants of African American slaves “saw the fleeting politi-cal, social, and economic gains they made during Reconstruction eviscerated by virulent racism, lynchings, disenfranchisement, Black Codes, and racial segregation laws that imposed a rigid sys-tem of officially sanctioned racial segregation in virtually all areas of life.” The Senate resolution even acknowledges that these Jim Crow laws “officially existed until the 1960s--a century after the official end of slavery in the United States.” But still no repara-tions for those who suffered through Jim Crow until the 1960s. Nor does the resolution provide compensation for those African Amer-icans who “continue to suffer from the consequences of slavery and Jim Crow laws--long after both systems were formally abol-ished.” Slavery was abolished in the U.S. with the ratification of the 13th amendment to the Constitution in 1865. During the Civil War, President Lincoln had signed the Emancipation Proclama-tion abolishing slavery in states that were in rebellion against the federal government, but that order had little immediate effect on the vast majority of slaves, who were held in Confederate states at war with the U.S. This is not the first time the federal government has stepped into the issue of slavery. In 2003, President George W. Bush made a trip to Goree Island, Senegal, a former slave port, where he described slavery as “one of the greatest crimes of histo-ry.” The bill also notes that President Bill Clinton addressed “the deep-seated problems caused by the continuing legacy of racism against African-Americans that began with slavery, when he initi-ated a national dialogue about race.” “An apology for centuries of brutal dehumanization and injustices cannot erase the past, but confession of the wrongs committed and a formal apology to Af-rican-Americans will help bind the wounds of the Nation that are rooted in slavery and can speed racial healing and reconciliation and help the people of the United States understand the past and honor the history of all people of the United States,” the resolution states. Although the House passed a similar resolution apologizing for slavery in 2008, the new version of the Senate resolution will reportedly be sent to the House for its approval as well. Six states (Virginia, Alabama, Florida, Maryland, New Jersey and North


Carolina) have already apologized for slavery.

TITLE VI. Purposes and Judicial Relief

PURPOSES. -- The purposes of this Act are --

(601) Purposes of this Act and U.S. Case law to restore enforcement of the provisions of the 1836 treaty of the United States and the Principles of the Supremacy Clause in relation to treaties entered into by the United States as set forth in Federal court cases Baldwin v. Franks,120 U.S. 678, 7 S. Ct. 656, 32 L. Ed. 766 (1887), Kennett v. Chamber, 55 U.S. 38, 14 How. 38, 14 L. Ed.316 (1852), Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366 U.S. 187, 81 S. Ct. 922, 6 L.Ed 2d 218 (1961) and to guarantee its application in all in every case, court and office within the United States and its Territories and Possessions where Moorish treaty rights are sub-stantially burdened; and to recognized the right of Moorish Cor-porations to invoke Moorish treaty rights see Papaila v. Uniden America Corp. N.D. Tex. 1994, 840 F. Supp. 440, affirmed 51 F. 3d 54, certiorari denied 116 S. Ct. 187, 516 U.S. 868, 133 L.Ed.2d 124 “United States subsidiary of Japanese Corporation was entitled to assert rights of it parent corporation under Friendship, Commerce and Navigation Treaty and, thus Treaty authorized subsidiary to discriminate against white American employee in favor if Japanese citizens sent by parent corporation to protect its interest in subsid-iary, despite employee’s claims of discrimination on basis of race and National Origin under Texas law, as Treaty superceeded incon-sistent state law.(a)to provide a claim or defense to Moors whose treaty rights were violated by government.(b)to protect and preserve the traditional religious rights and cul-tural practices of Moors.(c)to protect Moors rights to the recognition, observance and en-forcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrange-ments concluded with States or their successors and to have States honour and respect such treaties, agreements and other construc-tive arrangements. Nothing in this Act may be interpreted as diminishing or eliminating the rights of Moors contained in treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements

(602) As a pillar of the United States of America, Moorish treaty rights with respect to a matter within the federal jurisdiction is supreme over a conflicting state law As a pillar of the United States of America, Moorish treaty rights with respect to a matter within the federal jurisdiction is supreme over a conflicting state law. From its inception to this day, the United States has prized her legacy of the longest unbroken treaty relationship in United States history and honored this heri-tage by recognizing that Morocco a Moorish Nation was the first country to recognize the United States a Nation.

(603) The act is going to enforce the 1836 Treaty of the United States still in Force at 8 stat 484-487 within the Borders of the United States, its territories and outlying possessions JUDICIAL RELIEF. -- “Any Moor” whose treaty rights has been substantially burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government or corporation. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III and VI of the Constitution. As noted by the International Court of Justice in the 1956 Case Concerning Rights of Nationals of the U.S.A in Morocco (France v. U.S.A, 1952). The Court, unanimously, Found


that the United States of America was entitled, By Virtue of the Provisions of its Treaty With Morocco Of Sept. 16th, 1836, To Ex-ercise In The French Zone Of Morocco Consular Jurisdiction In all disputes, Civil or Criminal, between citizens or protégés of the U.S by 10 votes to 1.” The same shall apply to “Any Moors” in the United States of America in all disputes Civil or Criminal between Moorish non U.S. Citizens and Citizens of the United States as au-thorized in article 20 and 21 of the 1836 treaty of the United States. As visitors to Morocco, U.S. citizens are subject to Moroccan laws. If a Moorish non U.S. Citizen is arrested in the United States, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to which U.S. citizens and Moors are parties, provides that U.S.authorities shall inform the Moorish consular officers of the arrest without delay, if the ar-restee requests such notification. The sultan of Morocco in 1836 is noted as a Vassal of the Ottoman Empire thus the Empire of Mo-rocco was Vassal State. The Ottoman Empire (1299–1923 CE) con-trolled a number of tributary or vassal states in the peripheral ar-eas of its territory. Vassalage took a number of different forms with some states permitted to elect their own leaders. Other states paid tribute for their lands. There were also secondary vassals such as the Nogai Horde and the Circassians who were (at least nominally) vassals of the khans of Crimea, or some Imazighen and Arabs who paid tribute to the North African beylerbeyis, who were in turn Ottoman vassals themselves. The Ottoman Empire came to an end, as a regime under a monarchy, on 1 November 1922. It formally dissolved, as a de jure state, on 24 July 1923, under the Treaty of Lausanne.See Dainese V. Hale, 91 U. S. 13 :: Volume 91 :1875 1. Judicial powers are not necessarily incident to the office of con-sul, although usually conferred upon consuls of Christian nations in Pagan and Mahometan countries, for the decision of controver-sies between their fellow-citizens or subjects residing or commorant there, and for the punishment of crimes committed by them.2. The existence and extent of such powers depend on the treaty stipulations and positive laws of the nations concerned.3. The treaty between the United States and the Ottoman Empire, concluded June 6, 1862 (if not that made in 1830), has the effect of conceding to the United States the same privilege, in respect to con-sular courts and the civil and criminal jurisdiction thereof, which are enjoyed by other Christian nations, and the Act of Congress of June 22, 1860, established the necessary regulations for the exer-cise of such jurisdiction. ...(a) Judicial Proceedings: Chapter 85 of Part IV of U.S.C. Title 28 is amended by inserting subsection 1370 section of the United States Code“The Sundry Free Moors Act of 2011,’ “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by “Any Moor” for a tort, committed in violation of the law of nations or any civil action wherein the matter in controversy arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Moorish U.S. Citizens and Moorish Non U.S. citizens who’ve been arrested for a crime have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present during questioning. These rights are based on the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and they pro-tect everyone, citizens and non-citizens, adults and children. Moor-ish Non U.S. Citizens have these rights even if they are “undocu-mented” or no longer have a valid visa.

(604) Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigations shall enforce - The administering of this act Section 5: Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigations shall enforce the administering of this act. When a Moorish American non-U.S. citizen is taken into custody by an immigration officer or other law enforcement agent, the officer is required to contact that person’s consulate, corporate body politic and or a ministerial or consular official is entitled to visit the pris-


oner. The officer is also supposed to inform the arrested person of his rights.

(605) The U.S. Department of State, the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the United States Commission on Inter-na-tional Religious Freedom Section 6: The U.S. Department of State, the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the United States Com-mission on International Religious Freedom shall oversee the bill and its duties.

(606) Title 18 of the United States Codes Section 7: Penalties (if any) for non-compliance (not follow-ing the rules) of the act shall be a violation of Title 18 of the United States Codes: (a) IN GENERAL. -- This Act applies to all Federal and State law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after the enactment of this Act.(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. -- Federal statutory law adopted after the date of the enactment of this Act is subject to this Act un-less such law explicitly excludes such application by reference to this Act.(c) TREATY RIGHTS UNAFFECTED. -- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize any government to violate treaty rights.

(607) Supremacy Clause Unaffected “Treaties Law of the Land”(a) IN GENERAL. -- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to af-fect, interpret, or in any way address that portion of Article Six “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstand-ing.” Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Supremacy Clause of the Article Six, shall not constitute a violation of this Act.(b) DEFINITION. -- As used in this section, the term “granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions” does not include a denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.

(608) The purposes of this Act listed The purposes of this Act are --(1) to restore and enforce the fundamentals and provisions of the 1714, 1721, 1750, 1751, 1760 treaties of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the 1786 and 1836 treaties of the United States and the spirit and intent of the original treaties shall operate, to the extent permitted by the United States Constitution and the Principles of the Supremacy Clause in relation to treaties of the United States as set forth in Federal court cases before Baldwin v. Franks,120 U.S. 678, 7 S. Ct. 656, 32 L. Ed. 766 (1887), Kennett v. Chamber, 55 U.S. 38, 14 How. 38, 14 L. Ed.316 (1852), Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366 U.S. 187, 81 S. Ct. 922, 6 L.Ed 2d 218 (1961) and to guarantee its application in all cases where Moorish treaty rights are substantially burdened; and(2) to provide a claim or defense to Moors whose treaty rights were violated by government.(3) to protect and preserve the traditional religious rights and cul-tural practices of Moors(4) to protect Moors rights to the recognition, observance and en-forcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrange-ments concluded with States or their successors and to have States honour and respect such treaties, agreements and other construc-tive arrangements.(5) Nothing in this Act may be interpreted as diminishing or elimi-


nating the rights of Moors contained in treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.

(609) Formation of the “Bureau of Moorish Affairs” a Independent Federal Executive agency that promotes the health and welfare of Moorish peoples. Congressional approval for a Federal Executive agency called the United States Bureau of Moorish Affairs to interface with state and federal municipalities and promote the welfare of Moors native to America . Assignment of a Agency Location Code (ALC) and OCC approval of a foreign bank for Transitional Council.

(610) Section 10: The President shall direct the U.S. Department of State(a)The bipartisan United States Commission on International Re

ligious Freedom, (b)The Special Adviser on International Religious Freedom within

the National Security Council, (c)The Council on Foreign Relations, (d)The U.S. Department of Justice, (e)Homeland Security (f)Various Federal and State departments,(g)Agencies, and other instrumentalities Shall be responsible for the administering of relevant laws to evaluate their policies and procedures in consultation with Bureau of Indigenous Affairs in order to determine appropriate changes necessary to protect and preserve Moorish treaty rights and prac-tices. Twelve months after approval of this resolution, the Presi-dent shall report back to Congress the results of his evaluation, including any changes which were made in administrative policies and procedures, and any recommendations he may have for legisla-tive action. All executive departments and agencies (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 101-105, including boards and commissions, and hereinaf-ter referred to collectively as “agency” or “agencies”) shall main-tain a current awareness of Moorish Treaty rights obligations that are relevant to their functions and shall perform such functions so as to respect and implement those obligations fully. The head of each agency shall designate a single contact of-ficer who will be responsible for overall coordination of the imple-mentation of this Act. Under this Act, all such agencies shall retain their established institutional roles in the implementation, inter-pretation, and enforcement of Federal law and policy. The heads of agencies shall have lead responsibility, in coordination with other appropriate agencies, for questions concerning implementation of Moorish Treaty rights obligations that fall within their respective operating and program responsibilities and authorities or, to the extent that matters do not fall within the operating and program re-sponsibilities and authorities of any agency, that most closely relate to their general areas of concern.

TITLE VII. DefinitionsAs used in this Act --

(701) “Any Moor” the term “Any Moor” includes but is not limited too the de-scendants of Moroccans, Mauritanians, the Moorish inhabitants of North and West Africa, Spain, Southern France and Portugal and those who maintain Moorish cultural identification through tribal affiliation, body politic or community recognition and any child who is entitled to membership in a Moorish corporation shall be considered as belonging to the class of “people called Moors”


(702) “Moorish Subjects” the term “Moorish Subjects” includes Moorish citizens of the U.S.A. whom are of Moroccan National Origin or Mauritanian National origin, or whose descent is Moorish or non U.S. citizen Moors native to America and “Any Moors” who maintain Moorish cultural identification through a Moorish tribal affiliation or com-munity recognition.

(703) “Government” the term “government” includes a branch, department, agency, in strumentality, and official,or other person (acting un-der color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State;

(704) “State” the term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Common wealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory and possession of the United States;

(705) “United States” the term “United States” is a Federal Corporation, or a corporation wholly owned by the Government of the United States, an instrumentality of the United States, an Indian tribe, or any department or agency of the District of Columbia (as defined in Section 3002 (5) of title 28) or Section 2000E of title 42).

(706) “Moorish Empire” the term “Moorish Empire” includes the Kingdom of Mo-rocco, the Republic of Mauritania or (iv) A corporation, corporate body politic, body corporate or body politic indigenous organiza-tion or international organization created under the fundamen-tal laws based entirely upon the Islamic code composed of “Any Moors” or any Moorish State, or any tribe, territory, common-wealth, or possession of the Moorish Empire.

(707) “Murakush Caliphate of America Corporation” the term “Murakush Caliphate of America Corporation” is a Moorish Corporate Body Politic whose fundamental Divine Constitution and By Laws is based entirely upon the Islamic code, or an Islamic Corporation composed of Moors, or Moorish Body Politic, or Moorish Body Corporate wholly owned by the non U.S. citizen Moors of the Murakush Caliphate.

(708) “Vessel of the United States”

the term “Vessel of the United States” includes a citizen or national of the United States; a vehicle belong to a citizen or na-tional of the United States or (iv) A corporation created under the laws of the United States or any State, the District of Columbia, or any territory, commonwealth, or possession of the United States; (as defined in Section 3 Chapter 1 of title 1) (as defined in Section 115 of title 46 (as defined in Section 2432 (10) of title 16).

(709) “Vessel of the Moorish Empire” the term “Vessel of the Moorish Empire” includes a citizen or national of the Moorish Empire or the Kingdom of Morocco, the Republic of Mauritania or their political subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, a vehicle owned by a citizen or national of the Moorish Empire (iv) A Moorish International Organization. Corporation, corporate body politic, body corporate, body poli-tic, indigenous organization, or any of their political subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities composed of “Any Moors” or any Moorish State, or any territory, commonwealth, or possession of the Moorish Empire.


(710) “Moorish treaty rights and obligations” the term “ Moorish treaty rights obligations” shall mean Moorish treaty rights obligations as approved by the Senate pur-suant to Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the United States Consti-tution.

TITLE VIII. Penalties

(801) Protection of rights of Moors Nothing in this section shall be construed as abrogating, diminish-ing, or otherwise affecting— (1) the inherent rights of any Moor;(2) the rights, express or implicit, of any Moor which exist under treaties, Executive orders, and laws of the United States;(3) the inherent right of Moors to practice their religions; and(4) the right of Moors to practice their religions under any Federal or State law.

(802) Penalty and amount of Penaltya) PENALTY.--Any in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Pos-session, or District that fails to comply with the requirements of this Act may be assessed a civil penalty by the United States At-torney General pursuant to procedures established by the United States Attorney General . A penalty assessed under this subsection shall be determined on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing. Each violation under this subsection shall be a separate offense.(b) AMOUNT OF PENALTY.--The amount of a penalty assessed under subsection (a) shall be determined under regulations pro-mulgated pursuant to this Act, taking into account, in addition to other factors--

(1) the archaeological, historical, or commercial value of the item involved;(2) the damages suffered, both economic and noneconomic, by an aggrieved party, and(3) the number of violations that have occurred.

(c) ACTIONS TO RECOVER PENALTIES.--If any State, Terri-tory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District fails to pay courts an assessment of a civil penalty pursuantto a final order of the Secretary that has been issued under subsec-tion (a) and not appealed or after a final judgment has been ren-dered on appeal of such order, the Attorney General may institute a civil action in an appropriate district court of the United States to collect the penalty. In such action, the validity and amount of such penalty shall not be subject to review.(d) SUBPOENAS.--In hearings held pursuant to subsection (a), subpoenas may be issued for the attendance and testimony of wit-nesses and the production of relevant papers, books, and docu-ments. Witnesses so summoned shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid to witnesses in the courts of the United States.

Section 13: Enactment Date:

This Bill shall take effect 30 days following the passage of the bill. ______________________________________ President’s signature