Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

The Basis for the Bundy family philosophical dispute with the Government


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> The Basis for the Bundy family philosophical dispute with the Government Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The Basis for the Bundy family philosophical dispute wi... - 1/27/2016 6:14:58 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
Everyone, mistakenly I might add, have repeatedly stated that the men of the Bundy family are supporters of the Constitution, and are protesting government over reach concerning land use regulations and even how the government acquired the land in the first place.

To begin with, if as they claim, they were defending the constitution, then they would acknowledge that armed defiance of government authority is not only unconstitutional (except in cases where the government has suspended civil rights, order of law etc) and is in open defiance of the constitution they claim to be trying to restore.


quote:

We are exercising our constitutional rights. We won't leave until these lands have been turned over to the their rightful owners, more than 100 ranchers and farmers used to work this land, which was taken illegally by the federal government.


The truth of the matter was the land in question was originally granted to the native American tribe of the area, and then illegally taken from them to allow ranchers to settle on the land (similar to the Black Hills land grab so that the whites could mind the gold Gen. Custer illegally found in the region) which, based on court cases (one of which set the repriations to native Americans for reservation and tribal lands stolen after the signing of treaties) the government had no legal right to allow the settlers that homesteaded the to actually settle there, and no legal right to deed the land to those settlers.

So, in essence, no non-indian has a perfectly legal claim to the land in the first place.

Ammon also made the statement that the FBI had no jurisdiction in the State of Oregon, the county or even on the federal lands in question, making his point by saying that the county sheriff had not asked for their assistance in the matter.

Again, this is in direct contrast to the hierarchy of government as stipulated by the Constitution.

The political philosophy the Bundys actually follow is known as "Sovereign Citizen" which evolved or is a continuation of the Posse Comitatus movement, the term which means literally "force of the county."

In the very simplest terms, these men believe that the county is the highest level of government.

Again, in direct contrast to the constitution the men are claiming to be defending.

This movement is noted for one famous follower, Timothy McVeigh.

Now, the constitution does allow for the peaceful assembly to protest the actions of the government, however, it does not allow for the armed occupation of Federal Property as a form of protest, this is a criminal act known as sedition.

While some on this board may disagree, I would counter their point with the stance by the right wing government at the time of the Wounded Knee Occupation as well as the Occupation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs building in Washington DC, by members of AIM, some of whom were armed.

In both those cases, sedition charges were not brought due to the improprieties of the Justice Department in the handling of the situation. However, it is interesting to note that one of the key organizers of both actions was later convicted of the murder of two FBI agents using the same evidence that got two other men acquitted, even though one of the men confessed to shooting at and hitting at least one of the agents.

The similarity here and with the two incidents that I noted, is that in one case, a conservative federal government was in power, and in this case, we have Obama. The basic tactics used by the protesters are the same, that being the armed occupation of Federal property.

Now, as for the 'religion' connection, there is no oath of vengeance by male members of the Mormon church against the federal government for the hanging of Joseph Smith. In fact, since the founding of the Utah territory, while for purely church related reasons, the church has on many occasion supported and actively worked for the Federal government.

However, there is one thing about this situation. Prior to 1993, Cliven Bundy (Ammon's father) had no issues with paying BLM grazing fees, due to the fact that the grazing regulations prior to 1993 favored him. However, as a protest, when the rules were changed in 1993 (changes supported by the majority of his neighbors) Bundy did not renew his lease, and continued to graze cattle on Federal lands, angering ranchers who opted to sign leases on lands formerly allocated to Bundy.

Now Ammon and his brother had long been absent from the ranch, nor had they been active in the management or operations of the ranch prior to the confrontation in Nevada. All three men actively supported land use regulations when it suited them or favored their businesses.

In other words, when the rules were changed that would benefit the majority of public land users, but cut into their business profits, they refused to play by the new rules, saying their rights had been violated.

Now, under that argument and logic, I as a smoker, should not follow the new city ordnance about smoking in bars, restaurants and other public establishments, except those in which the owners decided there would be no smoking allowed.

Or perhaps, I should gather up a few armed people who agree with me and occupy city hall.

After all, my right to smoke in public, or privately owned business where the owner had not decided there would be no smoking had been violated.

Except, the ordnance was passed for the better health of the many, which, by the very virtue of a representative government such as we have, out weigh the rights of the few to ruin their health.

Now, we have the Bundys claiming the occupation was in support of the two Hammond men sent back to prison, both of whom voluntarily turned themselves in, both have publicly said that the militia occupying the Refuge buildings and Bundy do not speak for them, since they are following the avenue of legal recourse. The actions of Bundy and the militia are doing them more harm than good, because there is now no way a jury can disassociate the acts of the militia from the case.

It is a flaw of the human brain. A connects to B, and even if C is an independent act disavowed by A, it wont matter, although legally it should.

Now we have one man dead, who witnesses say was shot while trying to evade the traffic stop (and these were fellow militia members.)

We have other militia members who are calling for open revolt, which unfortunately for them, is also an act of sedition, in which case, the government is more than legally allowed to use deadly force to stop it.

All of which is a basic philosophy for the Posse Comitatus movement and its founder Henry Lamont Beach, who was a one time member of the Silver Shirts, a Nazi inspired organization that was formed after Hitler came to power in Germany.

That, in essence is the rest of the story.


_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: The Basis for the Bundy family philosophical disput... - 1/27/2016 6:56:25 PM   
Curmudgeonly1


Posts: 466
Joined: 10/6/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Everyone, mistakenly I might add, have repeatedly stated...

You lost me at 'everyone'.

That inane (grammatically & factually) hyperbole renders everything coming after null and void.



_____________________________

"The more defects a man may have, the older he is, the less lovable, the more resounding his success." Donatien Alphonse François

Dummheit straft sich selbst.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: The Basis for the Bundy family philosophical disput... - 1/27/2016 7:25:58 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curmudgeonly1


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Everyone, mistakenly I might add, have repeatedly stated...

You lost me at 'everyone'.

That inane (grammatically & factually) hyperbole renders everything coming after null and void.





Everyone as in their supporters. By the time I noticed the mistake, I could not do the edit.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Curmudgeonly1)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: The Basis for the Bundy family philosophical disput... - 1/27/2016 8:13:30 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
JLF;

The federal government's lawful jurisdiction ends at ten miles square from DC and the boundaries of needful buildings, like forts (military bases) and such. But this does not mean Constitutional rights, the federal government is supposed to enforce them in all places that have accepted statehood. Of course they rarely do, in fact most states are more on the side of People's rights than the feds, with notable exceptions of course. Mostly in the northeast of the country.

You know they got laws that if you pick up a pebble in Yellowstone and take it home it is a felony. But they sell them at the gift shop on the way out.

People are starting to see through this shit and that is why they want the guns. So they can tax us more like the Brits but not give us shit.

T^T

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: The Basis for the Bundy family philosophical disput... - 1/27/2016 8:55:11 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

The truth of the matter was the land in question was originally granted to the native American tribe of the area, and then illegally taken from them to allow ranchers to settle on the land (similar to the Black Hills land grab so that the whites could mind the gold Gen. Custer illegally found in the region) which, based on court cases (one of which set the repriations to native Americans for reservation and tribal lands stolen after the signing of treaties) the government had no legal right to allow the settlers that homesteaded the to actually settle there, and no legal right to deed the land to those settlers.

So, in essence, no non-indian has a perfectly legal claim to the land in the first place.

That statement right there means that what we saw when TR came along was the second time the feds over reached. So if 'no non-Indian can claim [perfectly legal] rights to the land,' then the feds can't can't lay claim to those rights either. (also would render both the Removal Act and the Homestead Act among other laws and treaties...as moot)

In as much as the feds have in fact claimed to have legally compensated the Indians for the land, then we are to believe that the Hammonds are obligated to likewise feel compensated. I don't agree with how the Indians or the Hammonds were treated.

As I wrote, the mere power of the exec. allows such overreach as to intimidate land owners to sell out on the cheap. Here, we see the feds repeating what they did to the Indians...to the Hammonds.

The Bundys' are crazy. The Hammonds and yes, maybe the Indians too...were railroaded.

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: The Basis for the Bundy family philosophical disput... - 1/27/2016 9:20:19 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

We are exercising our constitutional rights. We won't leave until these lands have been turned over to the their rightful owners, more than 100 ranchers and farmers used to work this land, which was taken illegally by the federal government.


So frankly, I agree the Sovereign citizen movement is bunk. That said, I am uninformed that the bundy's are making a sovereign citizen case.
all I have heard is they do not agree that the BLM has lawful jurisdiction.

quote:

Now, the constitution does allow for the peaceful assembly to protest the actions of the government, however, it does not allow for the armed occupation of Federal Property as a form of protest, this is a criminal act known as sedition.


quote:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.


Pretty harsh. But contrary to your statement - the law does not allow any delay to the execution of the law of the US., or possessing any property of the United States. Theoretically, if you had two people squatting in a house, you could charge them with sedition.

Frankly, thats just bunk. I think the ranchers are going to get stomped - and I think its too bad. By this same set of laws, occupy wall street could have been sent to jail for 20 years. MLK.. the list goes on and on.



I don't accept your summation of the story, in the least. The federal government according to many sources has confiscated irrigation equipment not theirs; built illegal fences; abrogated water and grazing rights without due process. I'm not talking the bundy's - I'm talking the Hammonds.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: The Basis for the Bundy family philosophical disput... - 1/27/2016 9:47:44 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


I don't accept your summation of the story, in the least. The federal government according to many sources has confiscated irrigation equipment not theirs; built illegal fences; abrogated water and grazing rights without due process. I'm not talking the bundy's - I'm talking the Hammonds.



First the Hammond case:

In the case of the Hammonds, I agree there was many irregularities in the case, and as the Hammonds have repeatedly stated, they are planning to seek recourse through the court system, and even some liberal civil rights lawyers are interested in handling the case pro bono.

The Hammonds have also said that Bundy and his followers do not speak for them, they have not given the militia people the authority to speak on their behalf, and have gone to extremes to dissuade anyone from making a connection between the Hammonds and the Bundy/militia organization.

That being said, it is an unfortunate trait among humans to remember things like Bundy 'claiming' to speak for the the Hammonds, and the actions taken by Ammon Bundy and his followers despite the Hammonds' very public pleas for Bundy to shut up.

In plain words, Bundy may have screwed the Hammonds with his actions and his claims.

Bundy/Sovereign Citizen connection:

He, his brother and his father have repeatedly stated that the Federal Department of Justice has no authority within any state or county without there being a request by the county sheriff for the Feds to get involved.

This is the core of the Sovereign Citizen/Posse Comitatus philosophy, no action by any government without the express request from the county can be taken, even on federal property.

Cliven Bundy has repeatedly went on record saying, virtually word for word, the statements of Henry Lamont Beach, including the idea that African Americans were better off as slaves.

He further demonstrated this by his attempts to pay his required grazing fees to the county, who had no authority to take the money or even forward it to the BLM.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: The Basis for the Bundy family philosophical disput... - 1/27/2016 11:18:23 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
jilf, to be clear, I agree bundy's actions are consonant with the sovereign citizen philosopy. But I haven't heard nor seen him express that belief either previously or in conjunction with this protest.

I don't have any fears that bundy would have screwed things up for hammond.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: The Basis for the Bundy family philosophical disput... - 1/28/2016 9:20:22 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
Ah yes, the sovereign citizen movement. People whom think the laws of the land do not apply to them. People whom are ALWAYS in trouble with the law. From tax evasion to gun running, these individuals create an ever present danger to law enforcement and citizen alike. The spew silly and often illogical arguments all the while ignoring the actual laws and instruction by law enforcement. These individuals are often armed and considered extremely dangerous if not unstable. Since they do not recognized local, state, and federal laws, if you piss them off, they'll shoot you and think it was justified.

Basically, they are an extreme example of how conservative politics have slipped into Hell. These people were often part of the 'Militia Man Movement' from the '90s. They welcomed the extreme views of the NRA's position that firearms should be as freely available as possible to fight a 'tyrannical government'. This movement gave this nation 'Timothy McVeigh' and 'Terry Nichols'. Two individuals whom would later kill hundreds of Americans in the worst act of domestic terrorism on the books.

How did these individuals get to this level of thinking and belief system? That comes in several parts:

A ) A poor education in which the individual barely passes high school
B ) A very immature adult whom lacked social structure during their childhood
C ) Many displaying one or more mental and/or emotional disorders
D ) Listens only to conservative talk media
E ) A poor or misunderstood knowledge of laws and regulations
F ) Belief that no man can control another man for any reason
G ) Very susceptible to believing conspiracy theories as actual truth and fact.

As stated, these individuals are often loose cannons whom seek firearms to defend themselves. If any one group of people are most undermining the 2nd amendment, its the Sovereign Citizen Movement. Many good police and federal agents have been killed by these individuals. They have confronted the good citizens of this land and made threats of violence/destruction upon them. This goes more so for public servants. From those elected to their position (i.e. sheriffs, mayors, inspectors) to those in the public sector (i.e. EMT, fire fighters, social services). As a jury, I would most likely side with law enforcement, since these sovereign citizens think they are above our laws. Best to let them sit in prison for the next thirty years to contemplate how 'above' they are in the prison population.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: The Basis for the Bundy family philosophical disput... - 1/28/2016 11:09:05 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
You might want to revise your opinions.
From the southern poverty law center.


INTELLIGENCE REPORT
‘SOVEREIGNS’ IN BLACK
Leah Nelson
November 09, 2011

Members of ‘Moorish’ groups and other black Americans are taking up the ideas of the radical ‘sovereign citizens’ movement

On March 29, John McGauley, county recorder for Allen County, Ind., came home to find a disturbing message on his answering machine.

“Mr. McGauley, this is Jabbar Gaines-El. I’m calling about your article about the Moorish Americans,” it said. “I just wanted to let you know that if you ever have any problem with members of the Moorish Nation, you can call me.”

As it happens, McGauley, whose county encompasses the city of Fort Wayne, was having trouble with members of the “Moorish Nation.”

Starting in December 2010, nearly a dozen black men had come into his office and recorded bogus documents purporting to change their names, grant themselves “power of attorney general” over themselves, and proclaim their “Unalienable and Substantive Rights to Be, to Enjoy, and to Act, distinct in my aboriginal customs and culture; and determining my own political, social, and economic status of the state.”

McGauley was not thrilled to learn that their leader, who calls himself “Sheik” Jabbar Gaines-El, had uncovered his home number. “I got a very distinct impression from the phone call that they wanted me to know that they know where I live,” he told the Intelligence Report. “I’ve never wanted to own a gun in my life, but the phone call I got made me think about it for a second.”



Jabbar Gaines-El
Jabbar Gaines-El carries a “Nationality and Right to Travel” card that includes a “Tax Immune Number.”
The situation never turned violent, but McGauley’s gut sense that something was amiss was correct. Gaines-El, who politely declined the Report’s request for comment, is a 38-year-old Indiana native whose real name is Jabbar C. Gaines. He’s one of a growing number of black Americans who, as members of outlandishly named “nations” or as individuals, subscribe to an antigovernment philosophy so extreme that some of its techniques, though nonviolent, have earned the moniker “paper terrorism.” Communicating through social media and learning from an ever-expanding network of websites and online forums, they perplex and often harass law enforcement officials, courts, and local governments across the country.

What may be even stranger about Gaines and his black Fort Wayne cohorts is that the “sovereign citizens” ideology to which they adhere — a conspiratorial belief system that argues that most Americans are not subject to most tax and criminal laws promulgated by the government — was originally thoroughly anti-black. But its racist roots have been virtually forgotten by increasing numbers of black Americans who have melded it with selective interpretations of the teachings of pioneer black nationalist Noble Drew Ali, who founded the exclusively black Moorish Science Temple of America (MSTA) almost 100 years ago.

The core ideas of the sovereign citizens movement originated in the racist and anti-Semitic Posse Comitatus group, which roiled the Midwest in the 1970s and 1980s and believed that the county sheriff is the highest legitimate law enforcement authority. Posse ideologues argued, in effect, that God gave America to the white man and therefore the government cannot abridge most rights of whites unless they submit to a “contract” with that government. But black people were only made citizens by the 14th Amendment, they argued, meaning that they have permanently contracted with the government and therefore must obey all its dictates.

The movement of sovereign citizens — most of whom are clearly unaware of the ideology’s racist roots — has grown extremely rapidly in the last two or three years. And, while black Americans remain a relatively small fraction of the estimated 300,000 sovereign citizens nationwide, it seems clear that their numbers are growing. In the last year, more and more black sovereigns, including several arrested in Georgia and elsewhere for using bogus documents to try to steal houses, have been implementing the movement’s basic ideas and techniques, which have spread into a number of radical black nationalist groups.

That convergence may not be entirely surprising, given that the MSTA’s Noble Drew Ali taught that black “Moors” were America’s original inhabitants and are therefore entitled to self-governing, nation-within-a-nation status. (Many American black nationalist groups refer mistakenly to the people of northern Africa as black; in fact, the Moors were a mix of Arabs, Berbers and black people.) Today, black nationalists who see themselves as Moors and white sovereign citizens both believe they have key rights that pre-date by eons the present government.


‘Paper Terrorism’
In practice, the conduct of “Moors” can be nearly identical to that of their white counterparts in the sovereign citizen movement.

The weapon of choice for both is paper. A simple traffic violation or pet-licensing case can provoke dozens of court filings containing hundreds of pages of pseudo-legal nonsense. These fake documents typically are written in nonsensical language that is all but incomprehensible to non-sovereigns.

“The first five or six or eight times we saw these guys, they were belligerent, they were hard to get along with,” McGauley recalled. “They came in here and immediately said, ‘We aren’t subject to these rules.’ They’re standing there at the counter lecturing my staff on their independence from the recording statutes and the fees that go along with them, and basically saying, ‘We aren’t governed by the laws of Indiana.’”

They refused to pay the fees associated with filing the documents, McGauley said, and seemed unconcerned when he explained that their name-change and other documents had no legal validity.

But McGauley’s alarm bells really went off when he learned that at least one Moor had used his “Power of Attorney General” document to open a bank account and pass a number of bad checks. Concerned that the others would use similar bogus papers to commit fraud, he contacted law enforcement and the local media.

Soon afterward, the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette published an article describing what the Moors were doing and warning locals to be on alert for official-looking documents that seemed “off.” The article quoted McGauley extensively. Two days later, he found Gaines’ message on his answering machine.

A few weeks after that, Frost Illustrated, a weekly newspaper aimed at black readers in Fort Wayne, turned over its front page to Gaines, who accused McGauley of racism and excoriated him for “spewing” what Gaines characterized as “negative propaganda.”

“It is my contention there exists a conspiracy within the local halls of government to deliver ‘smear’ tactics against the Moorish Republic with the aim and attempts to discourage unregistered Moors … from declaring their true and authentic nationality,” Gaines wrote in an editorial laced with sovereign theory.

Roots of the Moors
The Moorish Science Temple of America was founded in Newark, N.J., in 1913 by Timothy Drew, a North Carolina native who changed his name to Noble Drew Ali and proclaimed himself a prophet. Drew Ali taught that the earth’s original single continent, called Amexem, was inhabited entirely by Moors. A massive earthquake split the continent and created the Atlantic Ocean, leaving those in what became the Americas as that continent’s first inhabitants, long before the arrival of the ancestors of American Indians.

God eventually sent European colonists to enslave the Moors as punishment for their forgetting their history and ways, Drew Ali said. The only way for black Americans to regain their heritage, he preached, was to “proclaim their nationality and their Divine Creed … and know that they are not Negroes, Colored Folks, Black People or Ethiopians, because these names were given to slaves by slave holders.” Instead, MSTA members were given cards and passports identifying them as Moorish Americans.

Unlike the white-dominated sovereign citizen movement today, however, MSTA was explicitly not antigovernment. Asserting their noble Moorish heritage was supposed to enable blacks to gain the government’s recognition and respect as full citizens rather than second-class descendants of slaves. Drew Ali exhorted young MSTA members to “see the duty and wisdom of at all times upholding … obedience to law, respect and loyalty to government,” and “not to use any assertion against the American flag.”

Many white sovereign citizens today also carry fake IDs proclaiming themselves members of imaginary nations, but these are supposed to show that they are outside U.S. jurisdiction and therefore not subject to codes, statutes or courts.

The MSTA fragmented rapidly after Drew Ali’s death in 1929, but his call for reclaiming a proud heritage has captured the imagination of tens of thousands of black Americans — including Jabbar Gaines-El and his fellow travelers in Fort Wayne. They, like those in many MSTA offshoots and other black nationalist and black Muslim groups, took to adding suffixes like “Ali,” “El,” “Dey,” “Bey,” and “Al,” to their last names.

Today, the head of MSTA is none too happy to see its prophet’s words used to encourage antigovernment activity.

MSTA’s grand sheik, Brother R. Jones Bey, is arbiter of orthodoxy for the movement’s members. He believes the behavior of groups like Gaines’ is utterly out of line with the prophet’s teachings.

“We do not follow ‘sovereignty.’ The prophet never talked about that,” he told the Intelligence Report. “Our organization has been misunderstood by people who see the value of our religion but don’t want to conform,” he said. “They are not members of our organization. I don’t know what they’re doing, because they’re misrepresenting the Moorish Science Temple of America.”

Jones Bey said that the proliferation of non-members claiming ties to the MSTA and Noble Drew Ali and imbued with sovereign ideas came to his attention about a year ago. MSTA immediately added to its website a note stating that it does not endorse sovereign ideas or behavior. “We are citizens of the United States of America, and we want to make our contribution to the United States of America, not tear it down,” Jones Bey said.

That’s not how Gaines-El sees it. He predicates his argument that Moors are not U.S. citizens on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott ruling, which described black people as “beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

In his Frost Illustrated article, Gaines-El noted — as many white sovereign citizens also do — that the Dred Scott decision was never reversed. (It was rendered moot by passage of the 14th Amendment). He went on to argue that, as indigenous Moors, black people never agreed to become U.S. citizens. The Moors had simply “granted permission for the Europeans to settle.” The presence of the “all-seeing eye” on the dollar bill, he says, is proof that the “visiting European nations” made a contract with the Moors — a contract, he says, that remains in effect today.



Eye of Providence
The Eye of Providence is a popular symbol among Moorish sovereigns. Many claim its presence on the dollar bill signifies a contract between the founding fathers and the supposedly “indigenous” Moors of Amexem.
Other Moorish Offshoots
Sovereign ideas have leaked into other black Moorish groups as well.

R. V. Bey, Noble Nature El Bey and Taj Tarik Bey, lead polemicists of the Moors Order of the Roundtable, propounds a nearly indecipherable political theory that melds sovereign concepts and an antigovernment reinterpretation of MSTA doctrine.

Central to their thesis is a rejection of the 14th Amendment, claiming it merely created a set of “artificial persons… . Black, Negro, Coloreds and African-Americans are not living people; these ‘tags’ are politically and lawfully ‘brands’ that have been put upon the Aboriginal Indigenous Moors of Morocco.” They refer instead to actual treaties made between the United States and Morocco (the traditional home of the Moors) in the late 18th century, which described a category of “Free Moor” who could not be enslaved or subjected to U.S. law, even as other Africans were being packed into ships and sent to the New World as chattel.

They advise Moors not to cooperate with the police or the courts. Government officials, he says, know they have no jurisdiction over Moors — and as long as Moors refuse to comply, there is nothing the courts can do.

Queen Renita Bey, a lecturer on Moorish nationality and sovereignty who is affiliated with a group called the Great Seal Moors, argues that as descendants of “visiting” Europeans who were never granted citizenship by the Moors, white people can never be sovereign in this land. “If they want to be sovereign, they’ve got to go home. They cannot be sovereign here,” she said in a 2008 lecture posted on YouTube. “If you walk into a courtroom and nobody else has the status to be there, automatically challenge the jurisdiction of the court. There’s nothing else that you need to state. There’s nothing else that needs to be said. Stand mute. Let them proceed, because, guess what, they cannot proceed.”

Oh, yes, they can, retired judge Robert McLeod, who was on the bench for 17 years in the municipal courts of Asbury Park, Holmdel, and Keyport, N.J. — recent hotbeds of Moorish activity — told the Intelligence Report. “They’d show up, sometimes wearing fezzes, sometimes in robes, and they’d pull out excerpts from treaties that were signed in the 1780s and the 1790s between the United States and the Barbary Coast states,” McLeod — who also happens to be a history buff — said of the Moors he encountered in court.

“Those treaties were with nations that existed independently for a short period of time, [and] any treaty was totally abrogated by subsequent events initiated by the Barbary states. … I simply rattled that off at them, and they looked at me blankly, took off their robes and fezzes, and went back to their birth names, and pled guilty.”

Most of the Moors McLeod encountered were summoned for failing to pay tickets for motor vehicle violations.

“They were abiding by other laws; it’s just that they had these absurd notions which were taught to them,” the retired judge recalled. “If they persisted in it after I gave them my little lecture, I’d tell them they were in contempt of court.”

‘Free and Sovereign’
Not every judge can claim as much success as McLeod. Gaines-El, for instance, appears to have been summoned to court several times on minor violations, but his experience has not deterred him from repeated attempts to expatriate himself, dating back to December 2000. Just months before joining the U.S. Army in July 2001, Gaines-El recorded a “Declaration of Indigenous Identity” as “kin and family to this soil whose indigenous name is ‘Turtle Land’ and whose fictitious corporate name is America,” at the Allen County Recorder’s Office.

The phony document proclaimed that he belonged to the Great Council of the Thirteen Fires of Justice, United Mawshakh Nation of Muurs (some Moorish groups use that spelling of Moors). He also recorded a “Declaration of Nationality” stating, “I, Jabbar Gaines-El, declare that I am a free and sovereign individual of this land… . Any and all past and present affiliations implied by operation of law or otherwise with foreign entities are hereby, now, and forever dissolved and revoked.”

While serving in the army, Gaines became active on a message board on which members of similar “indigenous” tribes exchanged thoughts about uniting to form a more powerful movement. He dropped off the Moorish map after being honorably discharged in 2005 due to a combat-related injury, but took another stab at sovereignty in November 2010, acquiring a “Nationality and Right to Travel” card from the Autonomous Autochthon International Muurish Gansul.

The official-looking card identifies him as Jabbar-C:Gaines-El, of Moorish-American nationality and Naga Asiatic race. The card, which has no expiration date, also includes a “Tax Immune Number.” (The strange punctuation in Gaines’ name is straight out of the sovereign citizen playbook: Sovereigns believe that by writing their name that way, they are indicating to government officials that they are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.)

In an interview this April 15 — Tax Day — with a local Fort Wayne TV news program, Gaines-El said that he does pays taxes, “but I do so under the threat of arrest or coercion.”

In early June, a new face — El Clay Kenyatta Blackburn Bey — hit the county recorder’s office with a fresh set of documents demanding proof from Indiana’s Superior Court that it has jurisdiction over his traffic violation case. If he did not receive a copy of the oath of office, oath of ethics, and “bond number” for “all state/government officials, employees, Judges, prosecutors, agents, clerks, and anyone who has touched or is in any way involved with this case” within 21 days, he wrote, he would presume that jurisdiction could not be proved.

Blackburn Bey may care only about getting out of a couple of tickets, but his actions reflect how the local movement Jabbar Gaines-El started in Fort Wayne — like similar Moorish movements inflected with sovereign ideas — is picking up speed. At the County Recorder’s office, John McGauley and his employees are keeping in touch with law enforcement and have begun to discuss strategies for handling the Moors’ filings.

McGauley doubts he’s seen the last of them. “They are absolutely organized,” he told Intelligence Report. “There may not be a hundred of them, but they’re absolutely organized.”

Related Profile: Sovereign Citizens Movement

SPLC Logo Facebook Twitter
THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
400 Washington Avenue

Montgomery, AL 36104

THE CIVIL RIGHTS MEMORIAL CENTER
LEARN MORE
ABOUT US
Our History
Board of Directors
Senior Program Staff
Careers
Privacy & Terms
Contact Us
STATE OFFICES
Alabama
Florida
Louisiana
Mississippi
SUPPORT US
Friends of the Center
Planned Giving
Employer Matching
Gifts of Stock and Securities
Other Ways of Giving
Donor Resources
Store
RESOURCES
News
Case Docket
Extremist Files
Hatewatch
Intelligence Report
Publications
Law Enforcement

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: The Basis for the Bundy family philosophical disput... - 1/29/2016 12:09:29 PM   
DominantWrestler


Posts: 338
Joined: 7/4/2010
Status: offline
Difference is minor traffic violations to seizing a federal building while armed until your demands are met or violence is doled out

It's the difference between speeding and rolling stops to domestic terrorism. Threatening violence if your political wishes aren't met is pretty clearly definition terrorism, and I don't mean Patriot Act definition

Additionally, notice the MSTA emphasis on obedience to law and loyalty to government. Notice the Hammonds seperating themselves from Bundy

The Hammonds should be let out of jail after 6 months by the next president regardless of who is elected in part for not supporting psychotics, because psychotics are influencing extremism in all areas of the world. I am astounded by the number of main stream extremist cults there are currently encouraging violence internationally

< Message edited by DominantWrestler -- 1/29/2016 12:16:17 PM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: The Basis for the Bundy family philosophical disput... - 1/29/2016 12:15:39 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
Perceived injustice spawns these things mate.

(in reply to DominantWrestler)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: The Basis for the Bundy family philosophical disput... - 1/29/2016 12:54:54 PM   
DominantWrestler


Posts: 338
Joined: 7/4/2010
Status: offline
Injustice for Hammonds. Egregiously massive injustice for slavery

Bundys were out of line. They should have peacefully protested like everyone else. Bundys should not have threatened violence

< Message edited by DominantWrestler -- 1/29/2016 1:04:50 PM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: The Basis for the Bundy family philosophical disput... - 1/29/2016 4:54:35 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
Yeah, I agree with you.

But I don't think you give enough credence to the fact that things are coming to a boil. You like to look at people at the Bundy's and just say - oh these guys are just lunatics - and ignore the fact that these kind of incidences are rapidly increasing. And that your policies are spawning it. You look at one - and not the other.

(in reply to DominantWrestler)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: The Basis for the Bundy family philosophical disput... - 1/30/2016 8:34:56 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Those policies have been since the founding of this country. Philosophical disagreements have been since the founding of this country.

Burn the terrorists. This is not philosophical. More imbicilic nutsuckers believe more imbecilic shit. Burn the imbicilic nutsucker terrorists.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 15
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> The Basis for the Bundy family philosophical dispute with the Government Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094