PUBLIC NOTICE USRHC001-MFB1 

June 5, 2017

​

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

                                                       

THE PEOPLE FOR UNITED STATES OF                                                                                                                 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
AMERICA REPUBLIC Ex Rel                                                                                                                                   Controversy between Two States or
                    Melvin-Ford: Bey                                                                                                                                 Citizens of one State vs. Citizens of     another                                                                                                                                                                                       State or Against Aliens         
Plaintiffs,                                                                                       
                                                   
                               vs.                                                                                                                                                United States Constitution          
                                                                                                                                                                                     Article 3, Section 2                
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS                                    
                                                                                
        Defendant.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           FEDERAL QUESTIONS:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    CONSTITUTION, TREATY,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS, ETC.
                                                                                    
        
                                             PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 
                                         PURSUANT TO TITLE 28 §§ 1251, 1651, 2241 & 2254

VERIFICATION DECLARATION
NOW COMES, United States of America Republic Ex Rel Melvin-Ford: Bey, by and through United States of America Republic Attorney General, Larry-Taylor: El, to petition this court for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Declaring and Affirming under the de jure Law of the Constitution for the United States of America Republic, Annuit Coeptis Novus Ordo Seclurom, The Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1787/1836 between the United States and Morocco that, Petitioner is competent to be a witness and the facts contained herein are true, correct, complete, and not misleading to the best of Petitioner’ firsthand knowledge.

 
COMPLAINT
Melvin-Ford: Bey, a Moorish American National of the United States of America Republic is being classified as “black” by the UNKNOWN OFFICIALS for the STATE OF ILLINOIS and WINNEBAGO COUNTY, which is a violation of his constitutionally protected rights and the laws of the United States of America Republic to proclaim his nationality; and he has done so with the United States of America Republic. [Exhibit 1]

1.    JURISDICTION

JUDICIAL OFFICER: ROSEMARY COLLINS, CHIEF JUDGE JOSEPH G. MCGRAW, ELECTED SHERIFF OF WINNEBAGO COUNTY: GARY CARUANA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WINNEBAGO, STATE OF ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL JOE BRUSCATO, are not granted the proper jurisdiction in law pursuant to Title(s) 28 USC §1251, 28 USC §1330, 28 USC §1332 (1), (2), (3), (4), the Constitution for United States of America Republic, the United States Constitution of 1789 A.D. as amended in 1791 A.D., guaranteeing to each state a republican form of government. 

Constitution of the United States
Article III. Section 2:

“The Judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, others, public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;-- to controversies to which the United States shall be party;- to controversies between two or more states;- between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.”  
“In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under regulations as the Congress shall make.” 

2.    VENUE

The Venue is not proper in that, Melvin-Ford: El is not a citizen or resident of the STATE OF ILLINOIS, but is a Moorish National and Citizen, an inhabitant of the United States of America.  Melvin-Ford: El is protected by the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America Republic. Therefore, the STATE OF ILLINOIS is in violation of “due process of law”.
AMENDMENT XI
Restriction of Judicial Power
 
The Judicial power of the United States or the several States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the Citizens of the United States of America Republic by Citizens of the United States, another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

3.    DUE PROCESS OF LAW
“Due process of law in each particular case means such an exercise of the powers of the government as the settled maxim of law permit and sanction, and under such safe guards for the protection of individual rights as those maxims prescribe for the class of cases to which the one in question belongs.”
“They then mean a course of legal proceedings according to those rules and principles which have been established in our system of jurisprudence for the enforcement and protection of private rights.  To give such proceedings any validity, there must be tribunal competent by its constitution—that is, by the law of its creation-to pass upon the subject-matter of the suit; and, if that involves merely a determination of the personal liability of the defendant, he must be brought within jurisdiction by services of process within that state, or his voluntary appearance.”
“due process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgment upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of controvert, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the matter involved.  If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law.”
“The essential elements of “due process of law” are notice and opportunity to be heard and to defend in orderly proceeding adapted to nature of case, and the guarantee of due process requires that every man have protection of day in court and benefit of general law.”
“A law which hears before it condemns which proceeds on inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.”
Where provisions are not made to address Foreign Relations and Intercourse in a Consular Court, as prescribed by law, then no jurisdiction exists! A Court of General Sessions, Congressionally sanctioned, in accord with the National Constitutions and Treaties, Consulars and officials representing both Nations and Nationals, present and In Propria Persona would be proper jurisdiction. All parties would operate by de jure Constitutional and Treaty Law. 
If there is no proper jurisdiction or venue, then no lawful or legal trial can be held, therefore, all rights revert back to the People (Self-government with Sovereign Authority). This is where the UNITED STATES of AMERICA REPUBLIC’S Constitution clearly proves its purpose. When government officials supersede their jurisdiction, or deny lawful due process, redress, recourse and remedy, “At Law”, then they are the true criminals, are traitors to the Constitution and the Treaties to which they are bound by law and from whence they derive any power or authority at all! This is where the Supreme Law of the Land comes into effect. 

United States Constitution Article VI. Debts, Supremacy, Oaths.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.   [Emphasis added]     
                                                                                                                              
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [Emphasis added]     

4.    POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
According to all scientific and historical records, there is no “Negro”, “black”, or “colored” race in the human family of peoples and nations.  In order to obtain the truth concerning the origin of the so-called “black” people of America, one must return to the year 990 A.D. when the Moorish slave-traders exchanged dark-skinned Moors for the lighter-skinned Moors who had been captured by a Portuguese adventurer.  The dark-skinned Moorish bondsmen and bondsmaids were branded by the Portuguese and Spanish with names from their European (Romance) Languages which allude to slavery. Thus the term “negro”-derived from the Latin word “niger”, meaning “black” – and several variations of it came into use for this degraded purpose not only in the Iberian Peninsular, but also in other parts of Europe.  Over the centuries, this term evolved from “negro Moor” to “blacka moor” to “black” to “negro”.  (see Horace Greeley, The American conflict, published in 1865 and George Bancroft, History of the United States of America published in 1854.)  
The word “black” and all of its variations in all languages have always connoted evil, misery and death.  Moreover, the equally inappropriate term “colored” implies that the individual described has been painted, varnished, stained or dyed.  “Afro” or “African” are terms which arose from the European name “Africa” branded upon that continent by the ancient Romans in honor of the Roman general Scipio Africanus following his conquest of the Moorish City of Carthage.  Clearly, none of these misnomers-“Negro,” “black”, “colored”, or “African”-can be legitimately applied to any people of the human family because such expressions not only fail to accurately designate the true Race and National Origin of the people described but also degrade such people to the level of sub-human existence.  In particular, since the so-called “black” folks of the United States were, in fact, Moors in 990 A.D., they must be, therefore, Moors in 1976 A.D.  These Moors are descendants of the ancient Moabites, who inhabited the North-Western and South-Western shores of the land Europeans call “Africa” but whose true name is “Amexem”.
The land “Amexem extends across the great Atlantis along the old Moorish trade route defined by the 36 degrees 30’parallel to the land known today as “North, Central and South America”-the old Moroccan Empire.  As descendants of Moroccans born in America, we are the true and historically-verified Moorish American heirs to land where the United States of America has been established. 
Although twenty Moorish Sheiks and Sheikesses were brought to Jamestown in 1620 in a Dutch man-of-war bearing Spanish individual names (as well as the general term “Negro”- forced upon them by the Spanish slave-masters from whom the Dutch commandeered these bondsman, unbound Moors have inhabited and civilized the Western Hemisphere for centuries before Christopher Columbus supposedly “discovered” a part of the world for Europeans that had never been lost to the Asiatic peoples.  (Unfortunately, these Moors of the West engaged in an extensive slave trade in human property of all races with these Moors of the East).  It was these Moors of the West who, with the support of the sultan of Morocco, helped win the Revolutionary War against the yoke of Great Britain for the Thirteen Colonies and who assisted the negotiation of the 1786 Treaty between Morocco and the United States.  More importantly, men of Moorish descent comprised the majority of the Continental Convention in 1787. United States of America v. Jacques Leeds.

5.    U.S.A.R. Criminal Code. Title 1, §4

“Misprision of felony Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony such as the use of slave brands such as Black, Negro, Colored, or African American after Nationality has been stated and verified shall be evidence of denationalization and the dealing of Chattel Slavery cognizable by a court of the United States of America Republic, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States of America Republic, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned fifteen to twenty years, or both.”

6.    (735 ILCS 5/8-1101) (from Ch. 110, par. 8-1101) 
    Sec. 8-1101. Publications covered by uniform Act. Printed books or pamphlets purporting on their face to be the session or other statutes of any of the United States, or the territories thereof, or of any foreign jurisdiction, and to have been printed and published by the authority of any such state, territory or foreign jurisdiction or proved to be commonly recognized in its courts, shall be received in the courts of this State as prima facie evidence of such statutes.
(Source: P.A. 82-280.

7.    EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION of ABRAHAM LINCOLN
Whereas On the Twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a Proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing among other things the following, to-wit:
“That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward and forever free, and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.” [Statutes and acts are the same].
Abraham Lincoln knew that the Emancipation Proclamation was only freeing the slaves by manumission.  The newly freed slaves without a constitutional government of their own would thereby be subject to the jurisdiction and laws of the States. This is apparent by the statements made in the Emancipation Proclamation that they gave all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward and forever free. The escaped slaves fought with the United States against the Southerners; thereby leaving one conclusion as to the rebellion against the United States and them seeking their actual freedom would come later upon their knowledge and over-standing of nationality and citizenship.  The executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.”  It took some time for the Moorish American People to realize the necessity of the re-establishment of their free National Government and in doing so, bringing themselves in unison with the Constitution of the United States for it is a contract and/or compact with State governments and is now their sworn duty to protect the Moorish American people in their efforts for their actual freedom.
8.    UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION – ARTICLE IV

SECTION. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

9.    CONGRESS’ RECONSTRUCTION ACTS
March 2, 1867, Faced with ratification failure, Congress passed over President Johnson’s vetoes three “Reconstruction Acts from March 2 1867 through July 19, 1867 declaring the southern State governments to be illegal. Following are excerpts of President Johnson’s veto message to Congress regarding its first Reconstruction Act.
“The military is being used to coerce the people into adopting principles and measures that they are opposed to, and which they have an undeniable right to exercise their own judgment.”
“The bills without precedent and without authority, in palpable conflict with the Constitution, and utterly destructive to those principles of liberty and humanity for which our ancestors on both sides of the Atlantic have shed so much blood and expended so much treasure.”
“The purpose and object of the bills to change the entire structure and character of the State governments and to compel them by force to the adoption of organic laws [14th amendment], and regulations, which they are unwilling to accept if left to themselves.  If they do not form a constitution with prescribed articles in it and afterwards elect a legislature, which will act upon certain measures in a prescribed way [subjugation], neither blacks nor whites can be relieved from slavery, which the bill imposes upon them”.

Keeping in line with Congress’ Reconstruction Act, the Moorish American People have created an organic Constitution with prescribed articles in it and have elected a legislature, acting upon certain measures in a prescribed way; and have reassembled the Continental Congress to constitute and create laws to bring the Moorish American People back under the constitutional fold of a free National Government, without the 14th and 15th Amendments of the United States Constitution. Since the free national constitutional law that was enforced since 1774 declared all men equal and free, and if all men are declared by the free national constitution to be free and equal since that constitution has never been changed, there is no need for the application of the 14th and 15th Amendments for the salvation of our people and citizens.

President Christopher H.-Cannon: Bey, of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REPUBLIC, serves all government officials this Legal Notice that the Moorish American People have Inalienable Rights, as guaranteed to them by their Creator and Secured by their State Constitution for the United States of America Republic, and the Constitution for The several States of the United States of 1789 A.D.: and Amended in 1791 A.D. The Moorish American People do not consent to any laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding, pursuant to Article X of the Constitution for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REPUBLIC, even though such a Make-Up of Rules and Laws may have been presumed in the past. 

 

Constitution of the United States of America Republic
AMENDMENT X

Powers Reserved to States or People 

The powers not delegated to the United States of America Republic by the Constitution, or where it prohibits the United States or the several States, are reserved to the United States of America Republic respectively, or to The People.
 
There may exist in the United States an economic emergency the Moorish American People are not enemies of the United States and has by this as well as other Legal Notices and Public Notices, Severed, Forfeited, Rejected, Waived, and refused to accept any and all Admiralty benefits, especially the Limited Debt liability benefit from the United States and others. 

NOTICE

President Christopher H- Cannon: Bey, of the United States of America Republic severs this Honorable Court Judicial Notice: Moorish Nationals are private inhabitants with no Legal disability to the United States or the several states and notifies the Attorney General Joe Bruscato, and Winnebago Elected Sheriff, Gary Caruana and Assigned Judicial Officer(s) Judge Rosemary Collins and Chief Judge Joseph G. McGraw for Winnebago the following facts: 

1.    The WINNEBAGO COURT AND PROSECUTOR(s) has been given Legal Notice Melvin-Ford: El, Citizen of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REPUBLIC and Moorish American Nationality at the start of court.

2.    Said Public Notice of Rescission and Severance declared that President Christopher H.-Cannon: Bey has declared the following facts which have not been disputed by anyone, including Officers of the United States. 

a.    The Moorish American People have rescinded, severed, dissolved, and terminated, for failure of fair consideration, Ab initio, all agreements and contracts which created any attachment of equity jurisdiction between the UNITED STATES and the STATE OF ILLINOIS AND COUNTY OF WINNEBEGO and the Vessel [:MELVIN FORD:].
b.    Melvin-Ford: El has relinquished the Corporate, Wardship Entity [:MELVIN FORD:], and returned back to his own Government, the United States of America Republic, In Proper Person, without Colorable Legal Due Process.
c.    President Christopher H.-Cannon: Bey, of the United States of America Republic pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code, 1-308, has reserved the Right for the Moorish American People not to be compelled to perform under any Contract or Commercial Agreement into which they as Citizens of the United States of America Republic did not enter knowingly, intentionally, or erred by such reservation of Right.  President Christopher H- Cannon: Bey, of the United States of America Republic has informed Federal, State, and local government agencies that the Moorish American People do not and will not accept the liabilities associated with the compelled benefits of such unrevealed Contracts and Commercial Agreements.                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
d.    President Christopher H- Cannon: Bey, of the United States of America Republic has informed Federal, State, and local government agencies that the Moorish American People and Citizens do not and will not accept the liabilities associated with the compelled benefits of such unrevealed Contracts and Commercial Agreements. 
3.    Melvin-Ford: El has pledged his loyalty and allegiance to the United States of America Republic and has  Hereby Declared, upon Oath, he absolutely and entirely renounces and abjures all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, secret organization, state, or sovereignty of whom or which he has heretofore been a subject or citizen; that he will support and defend the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America Republic against all enemies foreign and domestic; that he will bear the true faith and allegiance to the same; that he will bear arms on behalf of the United States of America Republic when required by law; that he will perform noncombatant services in the armed  forces of the United States of America Republic when required by law; that he will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by law; and that he took this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. He made this covenant with the Moorish American People and his Father GOD ALLAH Creator of the Universe."
4.    President Christopher H.-Cannon: Bey, of the United States of America Republic has informed Federal, State and local government agencies that as Moorish American Nationals and Citizens are inhabitants and Nationals of the United States of America Republic. We are a Part and Parcel of the United States of America. The United States of America Republic has no Commercial Nexus to the Corporate United States, a foreign Corporation with regard to the United States of America Republic.

5.    Petitioners states that Melvin- Ford: El Ex rel [: MELVIN FORD:] Ex-Relation, is being compelled to proceed in Fraudulent Fictitious Claim against his will and intent, in violation of his unalienable Freehold Moorish American Rights protected and Secured by the Constitution for UNITED STATES of AMERICA REPUBLIC and for the several States of America and the Union created in 1789 A.D. also the 14th Amendment of the UNITED STATES Constitution.

6.    Petitioners state that Melvin-Ford: El  is being held in constructive custody and restrained in the free exercise of his liberty on or about 19TH Day of May 2017 A.D. by the WINNEBAGO COURT respectively, in violation of protections provided by both the Constitution for United States of America Republic and for The several States of America. As well as the Constitution for the United States. 

7.    Petitioner states that the WINNEBAGO COURT and MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROSEMARY COLLINS has taken an Oath to protect and uphold the Constitution for United States and for the several States of America, and has duties and obligations to protect the Rights of State Citizens. Moorish Nationals and Citizens are inhabitants of the United States of America.
8.    Petitioner’s states that peonage and involuntary servitude have been abolished within Illinois State and The several States of America. Petitioners states that President Christopher H- Cannon: Bey of the United States of America Republic states for the record that government was instituted among men and women to secure those Rights, not to overthrow those Rights.                                                                            

13th Amendment - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865

SECTION 1.  Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

SECTION 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.  
 

If Congress may establish a territorial government in the exercise of its discretion, it is a clear principle that a court cannot control that discretion. This being the case, I do not see on what grounds the 13th Amendment is held to be void. It did not purport to forfeit property, or take it for public purposes. It only prohibited slavery;
I will now consider the fourth head, which is: "The effect of taking Nationals, or Citizens into a State or Territory, and so holding them in “involuntary servitude”, where Slavery is prohibited. If the principle laid down in the case of Prigg v. The State of Pennsylvania is to be maintained, and it is certainly to be maintained until overruled, as the law already ruled on by the Supreme Court, there can be no difficulty on this point. In that case, the court says: "The state of Slavery is deemed to be a mere municipal regulation, founded upon and limited to the range of the territorial laws." If this be so, Slavery can exist nowhere except under the authority of Colorable law, founded on usage having the force of law, or by statutory recognition; and the court further says: "It is manifest, from this consideration, that if the Constitution had not contained the clause requiring the rendition of fugitives from labor, every Non-slave State, or Slave holding State in the Union would have been at liberty to have declared free all runaway slaves. Coming within its limits, and to have given them entire immunity and protection against the claims of their States."
Now, if a National, or Citizen is taken into temporary custody by a foreign state or if he/she abscond, he or she may be reclaimed, but if he is presumed to be a resident of a State by citizens of another State or Territory and held where the National, or Citizen is not a resident is prohibited, such National, or Citizen cannot be said to have left the service of his State where his services were legalized. And if a National or Citizenry be limited to the range of the territorial laws, how can the National or Citizen be coerced to serve in a State or Territory, not only without the authority of law, but against its express provisions? What gives the State the right to control the will of their Nationals, or Citizens? The local law, which exists in some form. But where there is no such law, can the State control the will of the National, or Citizen by force? Where no National, or Citizenry exists, the presumption is, without regard to race, color, gender, national origin, religion, or creed as long as the National or Citizen is of legal age and of the capacity to enter contracts. Therefore, if a National or Citizen entered on their own free will, a pledge of his life and property giving his voluntary servitude to the United States of America Republic; and under its Constitution were privileges and immunities in which were secured for the National or Citizen under its Constitution in favor of freedom under such a jurisdiction, can the Moorish American Man or Woman be levied upon as the property of his/her State by a creditor? On the decease of a Moorish American National or Citizens’ estate, does the National or Citizens’ estate descend to his heirs as property? Can the State sell him? Any one or all of these acts may be done to the National, or Citizen, where he is legally held to service. But where the law does not confer this power, it cannot be exercised.
Therefore, if a State held in temporary custody, a National or Citizen, and brought him or her into the foreign jurisdiction where slavery has been abolished; in this respect, the National or Citizen could not be coerced into a contract that grants jurisdiction. When the National or Citizen is a subject of the United States of America Republic, he/she cannot forfeit the property interest of the United States of America Republic in said National or Citizen; but only on his/ her voluntary expatriation of his/her former Citizenship and the National returning to that foreign state as a resident.  
By virtue of what law is it that a State may take a National or Citizen of the same state claiming lands under grants of different States, being an inhabitant of a free territory, and exact from him the duties of a Resident? The law of the territory does not sanction it. No authority can be claimed under the Constitution of the United States, or any law of Congress. Will it be said that, the National or Citizen is taken as property…the same as other property which the State may own? To this, I answer that Moorish Americans are made property by the law of the United States of America Republic by Pledge, and no such power has been given to Congress to deny any Moorish American National or Citizen from choosing on their own free-will, the State in which to reside. Do the Moorish American Nationals and Citizens carry with them the law of the State from which he removes into the Territory? Also, does that enable another State to coerce a National or Citizen under a “presumption” that he or she is a Resident in the Territory? Let us test this theory. If this may be done by a State on another State National or Citizen, it may be done by a State on every other National or Citizen of another State. This right is supposed to be connected with the person of the State, by virtue of the local law. Is it transferable? May it be negotiated, as a promissory note or bill of exchange? If it be assigned to a man from a “Free State”, may the State coerce the National or Citizen by virtue of it? 
ADMENDMENT FOURTEEN July 28, 1868

Section 1.  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What shall this thing be denominated? Is it personal or real property? Or is it an indefinable fragment of sovereignty, which every person carries with him from his late domicil? One thing is certain, that its origin has been very recent, and it is unknown to the laws of any civilized country.
A Moorish American National or Citizen, although brought under the Constitutional fold of the United States of America Republic from the foreign jurisdictions of the States, where a National or Citizenry was introduced and maintained by the mother country, in this case Morocco. Although there is no law prohibiting a Moorish American National or Citizenry in the United States, yet there is no law authorizing it.  For near a century, its courts have declared that the National or Citizen here is free from the coercion of the State. The Court would have to agree upon this point, and there is no dissenting authority.
There is no other description of property which was not protected in any State, brought from one of its Nationals or Citizens. Does this not show that, property in a human being does not arise from nature or from the common law, but, in the language of State laws, "it is a mere municipal regulation, founded upon and limited to the range of the territorial laws?" This decision is not a mere argument, but it is the end of the law, in regard to the extent of National or Citizenry. Until it shall be overturned, it is not a point for argument.  It is obligatory. 
The Constitution, in express terms, recognizes the status of slavery as founded on the municipal law. "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall," etc. Now, unless the fugitive escapes from a place where, by the municipal law, he is held to labor; this provision affords no remedy to the State. What can be more conclusive than this? Suppose a National or Citizen has proclaimed their nationality in the government in which they reside, but is being held against his will in a foreign Territory where slavery is not authorized by law.   Can he be reclaimed? In this case, a National or Citizen may be reclaimed and taken by his State from a foreign State or Territory of the United States, the same as a horse, or any other kind of property. 
Authority? I shall certainly not regard it as such. The question of jurisdiction, being before the court, was decided by them authoritatively, but nothing beyond that question. A National or Citizen is not mere “chattel”, as he bears the impress of his Maker, and is amenable to the laws of God and man; and he is destined to an endless existence. A National or Citizen proclaims their Nationality in the government in which they live and the nations of the earth; and who takes up his residence there, where the National or Citizen is entitled to freedom, rather than as a penal statute.
    That any sort of residence contrived or presumed by the State against a National, or Citizen of the United States of America Republic would be a violation of the National or Citizens’ constitutionally secured Rights. Therefore, the State would not be able to rely upon the faith of secret trusts or contracts, in order to defeat or evade the United States of America Republic’s Constitution.  Allowing a State to do so would be an acknowledgement of slavery.  
It is said the Territories are common property of the States, and that every man or woman has a right to go there with his/her property. This is not controverted. But the courts have decided, a National or Citizen is not property beyond the operation of the local law which makes him such. Never was a truth more authoritatively and justly uttered by man. 
Moorish Americans are National Citizens located in every Province State in the Continental United States. Their Citizenship is one nationwide in scope being that they are the Aboriginal inhabitants of the Americas (Amexem), who cannot be forced to one particular state like Indians on a reservation. Just as a man may move from state to state with his property, also the State is allowed to have National Wards of the United States of America Republic to share lands and property with citizens of other states, without their National Citizenship status being stripped away or property being taken by foreign citizens or even a foreign state.
                                     
Rules of Evidence Section 600 et seq.

Presumption and Inference Defined: A Presumption is an assumption of fact that the Law requires to be made from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action.
(A)    Presumption is not Evidence.
(B)    An Inference is a deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another part or group of facts found or otherwise establish in an action.

According to the Rules of Evidence, it allows one to rebut any “presumptions”.  Therefore, it is formally requested and demanded that the State of Illinois place any and all “presumptions” on the record that Melvin-Ford: El is a negro, black, colored, or African American; and our Government must be given the opportunity to rebut those “presumptions”.  The Rules of Evidence also state that the “presumptions” only need to be met.  In other words, simply meet the “presumption”, not defeat it.  The Supreme Court held that conflicting Presumptions must be weighed against each other. Scott V. Burke; Smellie v. Southern Pac. Co. 212 Cal. 540, 299 Pac. 529 (1931). This case held that a presumption is evidence that must be weighed against conflicting evidence.  The most that should be expected of a party in a civil case is that he prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence. The most that should be expected of the prosecution in a criminal case is that it establishes the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 600 was derived from Rule 13 of the Uniform Rules of Evidence and supersedes the Code of Civil Procedures, Section 1959.  The Evidence Code classifies all rebuttable Presumptions as either (1) Presumptions affecting the burden of producing evidence essentially (Thayer Presumptions), or (2) Presumptions affecting the burden of proof essentially (Morgan Presumptions).
                                                                 
                                                              (Section 603)
A statute providing that a fact or ground of facts is prima facie evidence of another fact establishes a rebuttable Presumption. A Presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence is a Presumption established to implement no public policy other than to facilitate the determination of the particular action in which the presumption is applied.

Then all the people will hear and be afraid, and will not act presumptuously again. “When you enter the Land which the Almighty Creator gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, I will set a King over me like all the Nations who are around me.”

You shall surely set a King over you whom your Father the Creator chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as King over yourselves; you may not put a Foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman. (King James Holy Bible Deuteronomy 18:13-15). In This Country The States Are The Kings, The People And The State Are One In The Same.President Christopher H-Cannon: Bey, of the United States of America Republic hereby Command as a matter of law the release of the Moorish American Detainee being held in your custody, Melvin-Ford: El is a Vessel of this Sovereign Nation State and is protected not only upon his State Oath to his people but to his GOD.  This Constitution (Covenant) cannot be broken by your State government for it is a Divine Contract between ALLAH and his People. ALLAH shall show his Wrath on any Nation that tries to come between him and his inheritance!
Courts that enforce mere statutes do not act judiciously only administerily; they have no judicial immunity unlike a Court of Law. They cannot obtain jurisdiction through services of process, arrest or compelled appearance Boswell vs. Otis 9 How 336, 338. 
When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date. The judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity courts in administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely administerily. Thompson vs. Smith 154 SE 583.
The STATE OF ILLINOIS would need to show proof of claim how they have any interest in [: MELVIN FORD:]. The STATE OF ILLINOIS with no contracts with Melvin-Ford: El would make any and all charges, claims, judgments, levy's, warrants, indictments or seizures, fraudulent and a trespass upon the property of The Vast/Vas Estate Express Trust. The STATE OF ILLINOIS, therefore, cannot file any judgments or any lien on a “Holder-in-Due-Course”.
Therefore, the beneficiary, the Moorish American People, demand “proof of claim” from the STATE OF ILLINOIS.  The Vast/Vas Estate Express Trust is the paramount security interest holder in all property and collateral both registered and unregistered, corporeal and incorporeal, real property, mixed property and chattel property belonging to [:MELVIN FORD:] . Melvin-Ford: El is not the surety. Melvin-Ford: El is the beneficiary.