“Black” People Affected By Slavery Exercising The Right Of Self-Determination
“Black” People Affected By Slavery Exercising The Right Of Self-Determination
The Issue
The Right of Self-Determination for the “African-America”
“Blacks” “Indigenous” “Lost Children of Ysrael” and All Other Peoples Affected By Slavery & Oppression , Proclaiming & Reclaiming Our Nationality as The UNITED YAHSHARALLAH MU’UR NATION.
We as a people choose to exercise our Human Right of Self-Determination to become our Own Nation and control our Own Destiny. We Demand Repatriation, Reparations & Restitutions in Gold & Silver coinage (U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 10) for all the injustices Our People have endured throughout Slavery, & Our Right of Return to Our Inheritance Birthright Lands of the Descendants of (Nabi) Prophet Abraham (Genesis 15:18) H.R.1242 “400 Year African-AmericanCommission Act” (Isaiah 60:4-9) to establish our Own Cities of Refuge (Deuteronomy 4:41-43) in order to preserve our own Freedoms & Liberties to Follow & Keep the Law (Exodus 20-)
Self-determination is the right of a country to be independent, instead of being controlled by a foreign country, and to choose its own form of government.
DEFINITION OF SELF-DETERMINATION
The right to self-determination, a fundamental principle of human rights law,(1) is an individual and collective right to "freely determine . . . political status and [to] freely pursue . . . economic, social and cultural development." (2) The principle of self-determination is generally linked to the de-colonization process that took place after the promulgation of the United Nations Charter of 1945. (3) Of course, the obligation to respect the principle of self-determination is a prominent feature of the Charter, appearing, inter alia, in both Preamble to the Charter and in Article 1.
The International Court of Justice refers to the right to self-determination as a right held by people rather than a right held by governments alone. (4) The two important United Nations studies on the right to self-determination set out factors of a people that give rise to possession of right to self-determination: a history of independence or self-rule in an identifiable territory, a distinct culture, and a will and capability to regain self-governance.(5)
The right to self-determination is indisputably a norm of jus cogens. (6) Jus cogens norms are the highest rules of international law and they must be strictly obeyed at all times. Both the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States have ruled on cases in a way that supports the view that the principle of self-determination also has the legal status of erga omnes.(7) The term "erga omnes" means "flowing to all." Accordingly, ergas omnes obligations of a State are owed to the international community as a whole: when a principle achieves the status of erga omnes the rest of the international community is under a mandatory duty to respect it in all circumstances in their relations with each other.
Unfortunately, when we review situations invoking the principle of self-determination, we encounter what we must call the politics of avoidance: the principle of self-determination has been reduced to a weapon of political rhetoric. The international community, therefore, has abandoned people who have the claim to the principle of self-determination. We must insist that the international community address those situations invoking the right to self-determination in the proper, legal way.
The right of a people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms. It states that people, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference.
A peremptory norm (also called jus cogens or ius cogens /ˌdʒʌs ˈkoʊdʒɛnz, ˌjʌs/;[1] Latin for "compelling law") is a fundamental principle of international law that is accepted by the international community of states as a norm from which no derogation is permitted.
There is no universal agreement regarding precisely which norms are jus cogens nor how a norm reaches that status, but it is generally accepted that jus cogens includes the prohibition of genocide, maritime piracy, enslaving in general (to include slavery as well as the slave trade), torture, refoulement and wars of aggression and territorial aggrandizement.
The concept was first expressed in the 1860s, and spread rapidly thereafter. During and after World War I, the principle was encouraged by both Vladimir Lenin and United States President Woodrow Wilson. Having announced his Fourteen Points on 8 January 1918, on 11 February 1918 Wilson stated: "National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. 'Self determination' is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action."
During World War II, the principle was included in the Atlantic Charter, signed on 14 August 1941, by Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States, and Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who pledged The Eight Principal points of the Charter. It was recognized as an international legal right after it was explicitly listed as a right in the UN Charter.
The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, nor what the outcome should be, whether it be independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or full assimilation. Neither does it state what the delimitation between peoples should be—nor what constitutes a people. There are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination.
By extension, the term self-determination has come to mean the free choice of one's own acts without external compulsion.
The principle of self-determination is prominently embodied in Article I of the Charter of the United Nations. Earlier it was explicitly embraced by US President Woodrow Wilson, by Lenin and others, and became the guiding principle for the reconstruction of Europe following World War I. The principle was incorporated into the 1941 Atlantic Charter and the Dumbarton Oaks proposals which evolved into the United Nations Charter. Its inclusion in the UN Charter marks the universal recognition of the principle as fundamental to the maintenance of friendly relations and peace among states. It is recognized as a right of all peoples in the first article common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which both entered into force in 1976. 1 Paragraph 1 of this Article provides:
All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
The right to self-determination of peoples is recognized in many other international and regional instruments, including the Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States adopted b the UN General Assembly in 1970, 2, the Helsinki Final Act adopted by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) in 1975, 3, the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights of 1981, 4, the CSCE Charter of Paris for a New Europe adopted in 1990, 5, and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action of 1993. 6, It has been affirmed by the International Court of Justice in the Namibia case 7, the Western Sahara case 8, and the East Timor case 9, in which its erga omnes character was confirmed. Furthermore, the scope and content of the right to self-determination has been elaborated upon by the UN Human Rights Committee 10, and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 11, and numerous leading international jurists.
That the right to self-determination is part of so called hard law has been affirmed also by the International Meeting of Experts for the Elucidation of the Concepts of Rights of Peoples brought together by UNESCO from 1985 to 1991, 12, it came to the conclusion that (1) peoples' rights are recognized in international law; (2) the list of such rights is not very clear, but also that (3) hard law does in any event include the right to self-determination and the right to existence, in the sense of the Genocide Convention.
The inclusion of the right to self-determination in the International Covenants on Human Rights and in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, referred to above, emphasizes that self-determination is an integral part of human rights law which has a universal application. At the same time, it is recognized that compliance with the right of self-determination is a fundamental condition for the enjoyment of other human rights and fundamental freedoms, be they civil, political, economic, social or cultural.
The concept of self-determination is a very powerful one. As Wolfgang Danspeckgruber put it: "No other concept is as powerful, visceral, emotional, unruly, as steep in creating aspirations and hopes as self-determination." It evokes emotions, expectations and fears which often lead to conflict and bloodshed. Some experts argued that the title holders should be or are limited in international law. Others believed in the need to limit the possible outcome for all or categories of title holders. Ultimately, the best approach is to view the right to self-determination in its broad sense, as a process providing a wide range of possible outcomes dependent on the situations, needs, interests and conditions of concerned parties. The principle and fundamental right to self-determination of all peoples is firmly established in international law.
The concept of self-determination is personified in the Charter of the United Nations and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter referred to as ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereinafter referred to as ICCPR). This concept is a principle on international law which allows the people of a state to determine the sovereignty and political status of that state without any interference. It must be noted that there is no clear, precise definition as to the concept of self-determination.
The United Nations was formed after the Second World War to replace the League of Nations. The principles of self-determination may have been outlined after the First World War but these ideas were constructed upon after the Second World War. The concept of self-determination was constantly raised during the Second World War and the concept was proclaimed under several provisions in the Atlantic Charter1941. These provisions later influenced the San Francisco Conference 1945 where the concept was enshrined into the United Nations Charter.
The said concept is mentioned in Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the United Nations Charter and is referred to in Article 73 and 76 of the Charter. However, these provisions are not clear and the question arises as to whether they create any legal obligations. The Charter does not give a definition of the term “people” nor does it specify the legal consequences. This causes difficulty in the interpretation of this concept.
The United Nations Charters’ principle of self-determination has been repeatedly appealed in order to provide a legal force to the decolonization process. In 1960, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and People was adopted and according to this declaration, everyone has the right to self-determination. It also represents the political and legal foundation for the policy on decolonization of the United Nations on the operation of specific procedures.
Article 1 in the ICESCR and Article 1 in the ICCPR was adopted in the United Nations Charter and it also reinstated the right of self-determination to the people. Both the ICESCR and the ICCPR provide sufficient proof to the meaning and concept of self-determination. The concept was further elaborated in the adoption of the Friendly Relations Declaration in 1970.
To prevent the rule in allowing secession from arising in the independent states, the concept of self-determination is applied to the principle of territorial integrity. This way, it can also in the decolonization process provide protection to the territorial of the colonial rule.
The concept of self-determination provides that the people may determine their political status freely and it could lead to independence, merging with neighboring states, freedom of association with an independent state or other political status decided by the people. Self-determination also preserves the sovereignty of states in settlements of disputes and in the area of permanent sovereignty of state over natural resources.
There must be a balance between the protection of human rights and preserving the international community.
Secession arises when a group people or community in a state declare their independence from the reigning government. When this happens, the group creates its own form of government in place of the previous reigning government. Australia still remains as one of the colony of the British government. In the 19th century, New South Wales was divided by the British government into various new settlements. Secession movements have occurred several times in Western Australia. In 1933, a referendum for secession from the Federation of Australia passed with a two-thirds majority. The British Parliament had to ratify the referendum, but declined to act, on the grounds that it would infringe the Australian Constitution.
Rights of self-determination originated as far back to the French Revolution and the American War of Independence. In the American War of Independence, it was claimed that their power from the consent had been derived and the people are the ones who has the right to alter or abolish the government. The creation of many European states was based on this idea and every country should have the right to establish an independent nation.
In January 1918, President Woodrow Wilson of the United States made a speech known as the Fourteen Points to the American Congress. This speech outlined the fourteen elements that President Wilson felt that was important in achieving an eternal peace. In his fifth point he stated that there must be an unbiased alteration of all colonial claims which is based on an observation of the principle that in determining sovereignty, the interests of the people must have equal weight with the claims of the government. The principle of self-determination is not absolute but merely a factor of importance. It is clear that people who are under colonization do not have the right to determine their own political and legal status.
Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant provides that the mandate system was designed to provide some form of conciliation between the interest of administrative power and the principle of self-determination. Nevertheless, it was just a political concept in the League of Nations and it did not form a part of it as per The Aaland Island Case.
There are basically 2 aspects in the concept of self-determination, the external aspect and the internal aspect. There are several evidences that show that the concept of self-determination is a binding rule of international law. The concept is binding on parties even though they have not adopted it to address to a specific problem or controversy. Self-determination is also the legal basis on the law of decolonization. This includes the rights of the people to determine the political status of the territory freely. Additionally, the Friendly Relations Declaration recognizes that a territory that is not self-governing or the territory of a colony achieved a distinct separation from the status of the management of its national territory. Consequently, it is unlawful to use force to for the prevention of the exercise of self-determination of colonial people. The concept of self-determination includes the right of people of a state to choose their political and legal status and pursue their own social, economic and cultural development. It, therefore, does not impose any legal obligation on the state to sustain a democratic government. It basically refers to the principle of sovereign impartiality of states and the prohibition of interference has already formed a part of international law.
The concept of self-determination has also been recognized in various international documents. The International Court of Justice is one of the main institutions of the United Nations and is situated in The Hague, Netherlands. The International Court of Justice stated in the case concerning the East Timor, also known as the case of Portugal v Australia (1995) that the right to self-determination is a right erga omnes that can be applied to everyone and is valid against all. The International Court of Justice also stated its advisory opinion in the Namibia Advisory Opinion in 1971 that the concept of self-determination has achieved the status of customary international law. This was reaffirmed in the case of Western Sahara in 1975.
Australia remains as the only country in the United Nations which is against the right of self-determination of the indigenous community. The rights of self-determination under Australia’s view is a continuous development of human right s which includes equal rights, the right of the people to decide how they should be governed, the right to participate in political process and the right of people to make decisions and manage their own affairs. This is seen in Article 25 of the ICCPR. The right to self-determination in Australia does not equate to the right of secession.
Around the 1970s, the indigenous community have approach the Australian government and requested for their right to govern their own communities. For indigenous people, the right of self-determination is allowed mainly in preserving their culture, language and identity and to have the right to make decisions for their own affair. Nevertheless, this is not agreed by the government and most of the non-indigenous people. This is because self-determination is viewed as a threat to national unity as such rights may lead to the establishment of “separate rights” or to the secession of the indigenous people. There are also arguments that indigenous people do not possess the right of self-determination. However, indigenous people do indeed possess the right of self-determination in pursuant with Article 3 of the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.
Regardless of any arguments that may arise against the right of self-determination of indigenous people, they must be rejected. This is because under the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, it is clearly stated that indigenous people should have the right of self-determination and this includes the indigenous people in Australia. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has confirmed in the cases of Chief Bernard Ominayak and Lubicon Lake Band v Canada (1990) and Marshall (Mikmaq Tribal Society) (1991), that self-determination is held by the indigenous people.
Common Article 1(1) of the ICESCR and ICCPR provides that everyone has the right to self-determination and that right is inclusive of the right to determine their own political status and pursue their social, economic and cultural development without interference. Australia is obliged to recognize self-determination in line with the Charter of United Nations. This guarantees that the right will not form the basis of secession of indigenous people in colonial countries. It is provided under the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People that any actions opposing to the Charter of United Nations are prohibited. The United Nations General Assembly Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of United Nations also provides that the principle should not be interpreted as any action that encourages or authorizes which would lead to destruction to all or part of the territorial integrity or political unity in compliance with the equal rights and self-determination and therefore, possessed of a government representing all people of the territory. The United Nations Human Rights Treaty also confirms this statement. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has yet to recognize the people’s right to declare secession from a state.
The Australian Government does not agree that the indigenous people have the right to secession. However, there are some indigenous leaders in Australia who believes that the right to self-determination includes the right of secession. Indigenous people in Australia do indeed have the right to self-determination but does not have the right of secession. It is also clear that this concept has been widely accepted by the indigenous people in Australia. Nevertheless, the extent of these rights still remains as a political debate.
The concept of self-determination, however, has no binding force in Australia. It is merely a policy for the indigenous people and it was never given a legal status in Australia. It is the discretion of the government whether to comply with the policy and even if the government chooses not to comply with it, there would be no legal repercussions. The government is also entitled to make necessary changes to the policy at any time.
There are several criticisms on the right of self-determination. It is clear that not all the members of the United Nation are ready to apply this concept. It also an imprecise concept there is no specific definition of self-determination. Too much focus on self-determination can also be dangerous as it would give rises to problems such as intolerance and the people would not be able to co-exist peacefully. In order to achieve self-determination peacefully, it may also challenge the integrity of the territory. The United Nations should develop better ways of addressing these issues in order to prevent any conflicts or violence.
Essentially, the right to self-determination is the right of a people to determine its own destiny. In particular, the principle allows a people to choose its own political status and to determine its own form of economic, cultural and social development. Exercise of this right can result in a variety of different outcomes ranging from political independence through to full integration within a state. The importance lies in the right of choice, so that the outcome of a people's choice should not affect the existence of the right to make a choice. In practice, however, the possible outcome of an exercise of self-determination will often determine the attitude of governments towards the actual claim by a people or nation. Thus, while claims to cultural autonomy may be more readily recognized by states, claims to independence are more likely to be rejected by them. Nevertheless, the right to self-determination is recognized in international law as a right of process (not of outcome) belonging to peoples and not to states or governments.
1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that "the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government." Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A (III)(1948), Art. 21; The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), in force Mar. 23. 1976, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, Art. 1; The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), in force Jan. 3, 1976, 999 U.N.T.S. 3, Art. 1.
2. ICCPR, Art.1; ICESCR, Art. 1; see also Karen Parker & Lyn Neylon, Jus Cogens: Compelling the Law of Human Rights, 12 Hastings Int. & Comp. L. Rev. 411, 440 (1989), drawing on discussion of the right to self-determination in A. Critescu, The Right to Self-determination, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/404/Rev. 1, U.N. Sales No. E.80.XIV.3 (1980) and H. Gros Espiell, The Right to Self-Determination, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/405/Rev.1, U.N. Sales No. E.79.XIV.5 (1980).
3. Professor Dr Mme Erica-Irene Daes (* 18 Sept. 1925, † 12 Feb. 2017) was an academic, diplomat, and United Nations expert best known for her almost 20 years work with the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations (1984–2001) promoting the cause of the world's indigenous peoples, during which time she authored many United Nations reports on Indigenous rights issues and was a driving force behind the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.[2][3]
Known for
Chairing the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations (1984–2001);
authoring many United Nations reports on Indigenous rights issues;
initial drafting & a driving force behind the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
She was the Founding Chairperson & Special Rapporteur, United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations; Member, United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.
30. The Vaddukkoddai Declaration of 1976 marks a clean rupture from any further attempts by the Tamil leadership to negotiate a dual state. The Declaration calls upon all Tamils to work for the sovereignty of Tamil Eelam.
31. Note that some of the colonizers were actually "break-away" colonizers - people who had rejected their original sovereign in favor of self-rule in the "former" colony.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that the U.S. Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and therefore the rights and privileges it confers upon American citizens could never apply to them.
Judgment reversed and suit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Persons of African descent cannot be, nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Const. Plaintiff is without standing to file a suit.
The Property Clause is only applicable to lands possessed at the time of ratification (1787). As such, Congress cannot ban slavery in the territories. Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional.
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from freeing slaves brought into federal territories.
THE UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES...
ARTICLE 4: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, IN EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, HAVE THE RIGHT TO AUTONOMY OR SELF-GOVERNMENT IN MATTERS RELATING TO THEIR INTERNAL AND LOCAL AFFAIRS, AS WELL AS WAYS AND MEANS FOR FINANCING THEIR AUTONOMOUS FUNCTIONS.
WE AS UNITED YAHSHARALLAH MU'UR NATION OPERATE AUTONOMOUSLY FROM THE EMPIRE WASHITAW MINISTRY, 501C3 (YET TO BE DISSOLVED). THEREFORE, WE ACKNOWLEDGED THE LATE EMPRESS VERDIACEE 'TIARA' WASHITAW (WASHINGTON) TUNICA (TURNER) GOSTON EL-BEY, AS STATED IN THE ABOVE VIDEO OF THE LATE CROWN PRINCE HUTAN TU'PAK BEY. READ ARTICLE 9 IN THE UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, IT STATES SPECIFICALLY...
ARTICLE 9: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND INDIVIDUALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO BELONG TO AN INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY OR NATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRADITIONS AND CUSTOMS OF THE COMMUNITY OR NATION CONCERNED. NO DISCRIMINATION OF ANY KIND MAY ARISE FROM THE EXERCISE OF SUCH A RIGHT.
THEREFORE, THIS ONE REALLY NEEDS TO BE PAID CLOSE ATTENTION TOO, ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE THAT ARE SELF-IDENTIFIED AS INDIGENOUS; THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BELONG TO AN INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY OR NATION...
ARTICLE 33 - 1: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THEIR OWN IDENTITY OR MEMBERSHIP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS. THIS DOES NOT IMPAIR THE RIGHT OF INDIGENOUS INDIVIDUALS TO OBTAIN CITIZENSHIP OF THE STATES IN WHICH THEY LIVE. 2. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE STRUCTURES AND TO SELECT THE MEMBERSHIP OF THEIR INSTITUTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR OWN PROCEDURES.
AS UNITED YAHSHARALLAH MU'UR NATION WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO IDENTIFY OUR NATIONALS, BY WAY OF NATIONALITY IDS, AND AFFIDAVITS TO BE PUT ON THE PUBLIC RECORD AND ETC... (NOTE: THE FACT THAT THE 'AFFIDAVITS' ARE ON PUBLIC RECORD SHOWS THAT A "DECLARATION", AND "PROCLAMATION" HAS BEEN MADE.
ARTICLE 35: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF INDIVIDUALS TO THEIR COMMUNITIES.
ARTICLE 44: ALL THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS RECOGNIZED HEREIN ARE EQUALLY GUARANTEED TO MALE AND FEMALE INDIGENOUS INDIVIDUALS.
Explanation of the purpose of Reclamation
Proclamation / Reclamation is to help establish one's nationality, a connection to an actual nation and land mass. There are "Negroes" and "Europeans" (Albions) that strives to keep us in N.B.C. (Negro, Black and Colored) status, i.e. denationalized, stateless and landless. And if you are not part of a Nation, you do not come under National or International Law. The Moor (Mu'ur) nationality issue is a threat to slave-holders and their “negro-bred” overseers, alike. Prophet Noble Drew Ali stated... "Come and link yourselves with the families of nations." The "Families of Nations" went by THE LAW OF NATIONS OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS FROM THE NEW EDITION, by Joseph Chitty, Esq. Barrister At Law WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES AND REFERENCES, By Edward D. Ingraham, Esq., which state, "The 'Law of Nations' is the private international law between sovereign individuals, families, tribes, courts, grand juries, townships, counties, states and nations." This has been well established under various international conventions for thousands of years. All the administrative rules and regulations, statutes and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and constitutions of various countries are based ultimately on the organic “Law of Nations." The “Law of Nations” is the “Law of Sovereigns,” derived from the principles of natural law. It is from the “Law of Nations” that constitutions are created and lawful de jure governments consummated. Any government that portends to hold power and wields authority without being answerable to these Laws are de facto and unlawful governments ruling by occupation, usurpation and exploitation. De facto governments justify their existence by the rule of force and coercion instead of the rule of Law. It is important to KNOW that sovereignty DOES NOT stand on its own. It is derived from your NATIONALITY... being part of a nation; as it is a part of your substantive rights, and is distinguishable i.e., unalienable (inalienable) rights, civil rights, and political rights.
Furthermore, we are a global people and have existed on all "so-called" seven land masses (continents) during various times of our over 3 billion year existence on planet Earth ; the Americas were given to us to possess (birth right) and inhabit by the (Ngu) Pharaoh of (Ta-Mu' Ra) Egypt. (Read"FORBIDDEN ARCHEOLOGY" by Michael Cremo and Richard L. Thompson and the "MOORISH HOLY KORAN CIRCLE SEVEN" prepared by Prophet Noble Drew Ali). "EGYPT (TA MERI, KEMET) WAS HERE IN AMERICAS!" The Egyptians came to the Grand Canyon around 1700 BC. This is proven by the fact that there are 18 temples in Arizona at the Grand Canyon. Below is an article from the "ARIZONA GAZETTE" Friday Evening March 12, 1909. Also , in "ARCHEOLOGICAL COVERUPS" by David Hatcher Childress, he states, "Perhaps the most amazing suppression of all is the excavation of an Egyptian tomb by the Smithsonian itself in Arizona. A lengthy front page story of the Phoenix Gazette on April 5, 1909, gave a highly detailed report of the discovery and excavation of a rock-cut vault by an expedition led by a Professor S.A. Jordan of the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian, however, claims to have absolutely no knowledge of the discovery or its discoverers."
BRANDED “Blacks” are classed as NON-DESCENDABLE & are subject to the ‘colorable’ Democracy bondage as veiled under the 14th Amendment and 3/5ths Person Clause. The 14th Amendment & the 3/5ths Person Clause was politically created to make ‘artificial persons’ (ie., corp. SLAVES) out of Natural Persons.
Reparations, means “to repair a nation". Thus, the reason why there has not been ANY reparations nor relief for a “so-called” ‘black’ nation of people is because they have no Nationality or Nation .
Nationalization (not 'Naturalization', as so-called Blacks are the"Indigenous Aboriginal people or the "Natural Inhabitants" of North Amexem (America, Amaru Ka). Therefore "Nationalization" is most important to a Mu'ur (Moor) because according to the Constitution for the united States of America in Article 1, Section 2, it states that we are classified as 3/5th person, a sub-human, a beast or monster (see "BALLENTINE'S LAW DICTIONARY", 1948 Edition. 'Human Being' is defined as follows: 'See monster' . From the same dictionary, 'monster' is defined: 'A human-being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal...a monster hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land, albeit brought forth in marriage'). Yet in the same contract (document) in Article 6, it states that the Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution, it's Laws (united supreme court case law) and Treaties. Prior to this status (classification), we had treaties (Treaty of Peace and Friendship of Morocco, Treaty of Marrakesh, Barbary Treaties, Camp Holmes Treaty and etc...) with the united States. Therefore, we do NOT have to be classified (status) as such. A Treaty is an International Law ‘Compact’ that is made and agreed upon between two or more nations or sovereigns, with a view to public welfare of those treating nations. Thus, treaties, like the nation’s Constitution, becomes the ‘Supreme Law of the Land’, and are to be lawfully recognized, applied, treated, and enforced accordingly. And the officers in government, the politicians, and the judges of every State are bound thereby. (Note: Spiritual being however cannot be found in "BALLENTINE'S LAW DICTIONARY"- so in the civil/UCC/maritime admiralty fiction Oz world [MATRIX] it does not exist, this is why Indigenous people must define themselves as Spiritual beings and NOT [just] human beings).
In the "ORAL STATEMENTS AND PROPHECIES OF PROPHET NOBLE DREW ALI," Bro. J. Foster-Bey of Temple 4 and 25 said that the Holy Prophet Noble Drew Ali said, "A beggar nation cannot attain to its highest degree of spirituality."
... As Dr. John Henrik Clarke stated..."We are a people searching for a NATIONALITY! ... A name of a people must relate them instantaneously to land, history and culture... And when you think instant-aneously to LAND, you think of NATIONALITY!"
Let's look at the definition of LAND, according to the "BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 4th Deluxe Edition" LAND in the most general sense, comprehends any ground, soil, or earth whatsoever; as fields, meadows, pastures, woods, MOORS, waters, marshes, furzes, and heath.
The word "MOORS" is embedded in the definition of LAND
Land is the foundation of nationality and the name ‘Moor’ symbolizes the birthright ties (Jus Sanguinis) or heritage (Jus Soli). In international law, negroes, blacks and coloreds in the said United States Corporation are listed as stateless, i.e., landless. Or are we? According to law heir land cannot be sold!
"THEREFORE DECLARE YOUR NATIONALITY TODAY!" ... JOIN US ...
UNDER 26 CFR 1.871-2: Non-Resident Alien outside the General Venue and Jurisdiction of the United States (THE UNITED STATES IS LOCATED IN WASHINGTON D.C., see O.C.G.A. 11-9-307(H) ,NOT YAMASSEE TERRITORY WHERE WE ARE DOMICILED) . A map drawn by Eman Bowen a geographer to King George shows Yamassee Territory before the mass invasion from Europe to steal the land. The company that king George sent here was call the Virginia Company before the Company name was changed to the United States of America,Inc EIN #2193946 . The Company known as The state of Georgia,Inc; was named after him.
Genesis 15:13-14 “400 Years of Slavery & Oppression”
Exodus 3:13-15 “I Am Sent Me”
Deuteronomy 4:41-43 “Cities of Refuge”
Isaiah 14 , 49:22 , 52 , 60 , 62 “Salvation”
Jeremiah 49:38 “My Throne”
1) The IRS is not a U.S. government agency.
It is an agency of the IMF.
(Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al.
CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I,
Public Law 94-564,
Senate report 94-1148 pg. 5967,
Reorganization Plan No. 26,
Public Law 102-391)
2) The IMF is an agency of the U.N.
(Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed. page 816)
3) The United States has NOT had a Treasury since 1921.
(41 Stat. Ch. 214 page 654)
4) The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF
(Presidential Documents Volume 29 -No. 4 page 113, 22 U.S.C 285-288)
5) The United States does not have any employees because there is no longer a United States.
No more reorganizations.
After over 200 years of bankruptcy it is finally over.
(Executive Order 12803)
6) The FCC, CIA, FBI, NASA and all of the other alphabet gangs were never part of the U.S. government. Even though the "U.S. Government" held stock in the various agencies.
(U.S. v. Strang, 254 US 491
Lewis v. US, 680 F.2d, 1239)
7) Social Security Numbers are issued by the UN through the IMF. The application for a Social Security # is the SS5 form. The Dep't of the Treasury (IMF) issues the SS5 forms do not state who publishes them while the old form states they are Department of the Treasury
(20 CFR Chap. 111 Subpart B 422.103 (b))
8) There are NO Judicial courts in America and have not been since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statues and Codes. Executive Adminstrators enforce Statues and Codes.
(FRC v. GE 281 US 464
Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178)
9) There have Not been any Judges in America since 1789.
There have just been administrators.
(FRC v. GE 281 US 464
Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178)
10) According to GATT you must have a Social Security number.
House Report (103-826)
11) New York City is defined in the Federal Regulations as the United Nations. Rudolph Guiliani stated on C-Span that "New York City is the capital of the World". For once, he told the truth.
(20 CFR Chap. 111, subpart B 422.103 (b) (2) (2)
https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ102/PLAW-115publ102.pdf?sfns=mo
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_citizenship_law
Ahyh
Sunil Aaron Kumar : Sharma
Yahsharallah
61
The Issue
The Right of Self-Determination for the “African-America”
“Blacks” “Indigenous” “Lost Children of Ysrael” and All Other Peoples Affected By Slavery & Oppression , Proclaiming & Reclaiming Our Nationality as The UNITED YAHSHARALLAH MU’UR NATION.
We as a people choose to exercise our Human Right of Self-Determination to become our Own Nation and control our Own Destiny. We Demand Repatriation, Reparations & Restitutions in Gold & Silver coinage (U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 10) for all the injustices Our People have endured throughout Slavery, & Our Right of Return to Our Inheritance Birthright Lands of the Descendants of (Nabi) Prophet Abraham (Genesis 15:18) H.R.1242 “400 Year African-AmericanCommission Act” (Isaiah 60:4-9) to establish our Own Cities of Refuge (Deuteronomy 4:41-43) in order to preserve our own Freedoms & Liberties to Follow & Keep the Law (Exodus 20-)
Self-determination is the right of a country to be independent, instead of being controlled by a foreign country, and to choose its own form of government.
DEFINITION OF SELF-DETERMINATION
The right to self-determination, a fundamental principle of human rights law,(1) is an individual and collective right to "freely determine . . . political status and [to] freely pursue . . . economic, social and cultural development." (2) The principle of self-determination is generally linked to the de-colonization process that took place after the promulgation of the United Nations Charter of 1945. (3) Of course, the obligation to respect the principle of self-determination is a prominent feature of the Charter, appearing, inter alia, in both Preamble to the Charter and in Article 1.
The International Court of Justice refers to the right to self-determination as a right held by people rather than a right held by governments alone. (4) The two important United Nations studies on the right to self-determination set out factors of a people that give rise to possession of right to self-determination: a history of independence or self-rule in an identifiable territory, a distinct culture, and a will and capability to regain self-governance.(5)
The right to self-determination is indisputably a norm of jus cogens. (6) Jus cogens norms are the highest rules of international law and they must be strictly obeyed at all times. Both the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States have ruled on cases in a way that supports the view that the principle of self-determination also has the legal status of erga omnes.(7) The term "erga omnes" means "flowing to all." Accordingly, ergas omnes obligations of a State are owed to the international community as a whole: when a principle achieves the status of erga omnes the rest of the international community is under a mandatory duty to respect it in all circumstances in their relations with each other.
Unfortunately, when we review situations invoking the principle of self-determination, we encounter what we must call the politics of avoidance: the principle of self-determination has been reduced to a weapon of political rhetoric. The international community, therefore, has abandoned people who have the claim to the principle of self-determination. We must insist that the international community address those situations invoking the right to self-determination in the proper, legal way.
The right of a people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms. It states that people, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference.
A peremptory norm (also called jus cogens or ius cogens /ˌdʒʌs ˈkoʊdʒɛnz, ˌjʌs/;[1] Latin for "compelling law") is a fundamental principle of international law that is accepted by the international community of states as a norm from which no derogation is permitted.
There is no universal agreement regarding precisely which norms are jus cogens nor how a norm reaches that status, but it is generally accepted that jus cogens includes the prohibition of genocide, maritime piracy, enslaving in general (to include slavery as well as the slave trade), torture, refoulement and wars of aggression and territorial aggrandizement.
The concept was first expressed in the 1860s, and spread rapidly thereafter. During and after World War I, the principle was encouraged by both Vladimir Lenin and United States President Woodrow Wilson. Having announced his Fourteen Points on 8 January 1918, on 11 February 1918 Wilson stated: "National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. 'Self determination' is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action."
During World War II, the principle was included in the Atlantic Charter, signed on 14 August 1941, by Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States, and Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who pledged The Eight Principal points of the Charter. It was recognized as an international legal right after it was explicitly listed as a right in the UN Charter.
The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, nor what the outcome should be, whether it be independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or full assimilation. Neither does it state what the delimitation between peoples should be—nor what constitutes a people. There are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination.
By extension, the term self-determination has come to mean the free choice of one's own acts without external compulsion.
The principle of self-determination is prominently embodied in Article I of the Charter of the United Nations. Earlier it was explicitly embraced by US President Woodrow Wilson, by Lenin and others, and became the guiding principle for the reconstruction of Europe following World War I. The principle was incorporated into the 1941 Atlantic Charter and the Dumbarton Oaks proposals which evolved into the United Nations Charter. Its inclusion in the UN Charter marks the universal recognition of the principle as fundamental to the maintenance of friendly relations and peace among states. It is recognized as a right of all peoples in the first article common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which both entered into force in 1976. 1 Paragraph 1 of this Article provides:
All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
The right to self-determination of peoples is recognized in many other international and regional instruments, including the Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States adopted b the UN General Assembly in 1970, 2, the Helsinki Final Act adopted by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) in 1975, 3, the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights of 1981, 4, the CSCE Charter of Paris for a New Europe adopted in 1990, 5, and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action of 1993. 6, It has been affirmed by the International Court of Justice in the Namibia case 7, the Western Sahara case 8, and the East Timor case 9, in which its erga omnes character was confirmed. Furthermore, the scope and content of the right to self-determination has been elaborated upon by the UN Human Rights Committee 10, and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 11, and numerous leading international jurists.
That the right to self-determination is part of so called hard law has been affirmed also by the International Meeting of Experts for the Elucidation of the Concepts of Rights of Peoples brought together by UNESCO from 1985 to 1991, 12, it came to the conclusion that (1) peoples' rights are recognized in international law; (2) the list of such rights is not very clear, but also that (3) hard law does in any event include the right to self-determination and the right to existence, in the sense of the Genocide Convention.
The inclusion of the right to self-determination in the International Covenants on Human Rights and in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, referred to above, emphasizes that self-determination is an integral part of human rights law which has a universal application. At the same time, it is recognized that compliance with the right of self-determination is a fundamental condition for the enjoyment of other human rights and fundamental freedoms, be they civil, political, economic, social or cultural.
The concept of self-determination is a very powerful one. As Wolfgang Danspeckgruber put it: "No other concept is as powerful, visceral, emotional, unruly, as steep in creating aspirations and hopes as self-determination." It evokes emotions, expectations and fears which often lead to conflict and bloodshed. Some experts argued that the title holders should be or are limited in international law. Others believed in the need to limit the possible outcome for all or categories of title holders. Ultimately, the best approach is to view the right to self-determination in its broad sense, as a process providing a wide range of possible outcomes dependent on the situations, needs, interests and conditions of concerned parties. The principle and fundamental right to self-determination of all peoples is firmly established in international law.
The concept of self-determination is personified in the Charter of the United Nations and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter referred to as ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereinafter referred to as ICCPR). This concept is a principle on international law which allows the people of a state to determine the sovereignty and political status of that state without any interference. It must be noted that there is no clear, precise definition as to the concept of self-determination.
The United Nations was formed after the Second World War to replace the League of Nations. The principles of self-determination may have been outlined after the First World War but these ideas were constructed upon after the Second World War. The concept of self-determination was constantly raised during the Second World War and the concept was proclaimed under several provisions in the Atlantic Charter1941. These provisions later influenced the San Francisco Conference 1945 where the concept was enshrined into the United Nations Charter.
The said concept is mentioned in Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the United Nations Charter and is referred to in Article 73 and 76 of the Charter. However, these provisions are not clear and the question arises as to whether they create any legal obligations. The Charter does not give a definition of the term “people” nor does it specify the legal consequences. This causes difficulty in the interpretation of this concept.
The United Nations Charters’ principle of self-determination has been repeatedly appealed in order to provide a legal force to the decolonization process. In 1960, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and People was adopted and according to this declaration, everyone has the right to self-determination. It also represents the political and legal foundation for the policy on decolonization of the United Nations on the operation of specific procedures.
Article 1 in the ICESCR and Article 1 in the ICCPR was adopted in the United Nations Charter and it also reinstated the right of self-determination to the people. Both the ICESCR and the ICCPR provide sufficient proof to the meaning and concept of self-determination. The concept was further elaborated in the adoption of the Friendly Relations Declaration in 1970.
To prevent the rule in allowing secession from arising in the independent states, the concept of self-determination is applied to the principle of territorial integrity. This way, it can also in the decolonization process provide protection to the territorial of the colonial rule.
The concept of self-determination provides that the people may determine their political status freely and it could lead to independence, merging with neighboring states, freedom of association with an independent state or other political status decided by the people. Self-determination also preserves the sovereignty of states in settlements of disputes and in the area of permanent sovereignty of state over natural resources.
There must be a balance between the protection of human rights and preserving the international community.
Secession arises when a group people or community in a state declare their independence from the reigning government. When this happens, the group creates its own form of government in place of the previous reigning government. Australia still remains as one of the colony of the British government. In the 19th century, New South Wales was divided by the British government into various new settlements. Secession movements have occurred several times in Western Australia. In 1933, a referendum for secession from the Federation of Australia passed with a two-thirds majority. The British Parliament had to ratify the referendum, but declined to act, on the grounds that it would infringe the Australian Constitution.
Rights of self-determination originated as far back to the French Revolution and the American War of Independence. In the American War of Independence, it was claimed that their power from the consent had been derived and the people are the ones who has the right to alter or abolish the government. The creation of many European states was based on this idea and every country should have the right to establish an independent nation.
In January 1918, President Woodrow Wilson of the United States made a speech known as the Fourteen Points to the American Congress. This speech outlined the fourteen elements that President Wilson felt that was important in achieving an eternal peace. In his fifth point he stated that there must be an unbiased alteration of all colonial claims which is based on an observation of the principle that in determining sovereignty, the interests of the people must have equal weight with the claims of the government. The principle of self-determination is not absolute but merely a factor of importance. It is clear that people who are under colonization do not have the right to determine their own political and legal status.
Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant provides that the mandate system was designed to provide some form of conciliation between the interest of administrative power and the principle of self-determination. Nevertheless, it was just a political concept in the League of Nations and it did not form a part of it as per The Aaland Island Case.
There are basically 2 aspects in the concept of self-determination, the external aspect and the internal aspect. There are several evidences that show that the concept of self-determination is a binding rule of international law. The concept is binding on parties even though they have not adopted it to address to a specific problem or controversy. Self-determination is also the legal basis on the law of decolonization. This includes the rights of the people to determine the political status of the territory freely. Additionally, the Friendly Relations Declaration recognizes that a territory that is not self-governing or the territory of a colony achieved a distinct separation from the status of the management of its national territory. Consequently, it is unlawful to use force to for the prevention of the exercise of self-determination of colonial people. The concept of self-determination includes the right of people of a state to choose their political and legal status and pursue their own social, economic and cultural development. It, therefore, does not impose any legal obligation on the state to sustain a democratic government. It basically refers to the principle of sovereign impartiality of states and the prohibition of interference has already formed a part of international law.
The concept of self-determination has also been recognized in various international documents. The International Court of Justice is one of the main institutions of the United Nations and is situated in The Hague, Netherlands. The International Court of Justice stated in the case concerning the East Timor, also known as the case of Portugal v Australia (1995) that the right to self-determination is a right erga omnes that can be applied to everyone and is valid against all. The International Court of Justice also stated its advisory opinion in the Namibia Advisory Opinion in 1971 that the concept of self-determination has achieved the status of customary international law. This was reaffirmed in the case of Western Sahara in 1975.
Australia remains as the only country in the United Nations which is against the right of self-determination of the indigenous community. The rights of self-determination under Australia’s view is a continuous development of human right s which includes equal rights, the right of the people to decide how they should be governed, the right to participate in political process and the right of people to make decisions and manage their own affairs. This is seen in Article 25 of the ICCPR. The right to self-determination in Australia does not equate to the right of secession.
Around the 1970s, the indigenous community have approach the Australian government and requested for their right to govern their own communities. For indigenous people, the right of self-determination is allowed mainly in preserving their culture, language and identity and to have the right to make decisions for their own affair. Nevertheless, this is not agreed by the government and most of the non-indigenous people. This is because self-determination is viewed as a threat to national unity as such rights may lead to the establishment of “separate rights” or to the secession of the indigenous people. There are also arguments that indigenous people do not possess the right of self-determination. However, indigenous people do indeed possess the right of self-determination in pursuant with Article 3 of the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.
Regardless of any arguments that may arise against the right of self-determination of indigenous people, they must be rejected. This is because under the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, it is clearly stated that indigenous people should have the right of self-determination and this includes the indigenous people in Australia. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has confirmed in the cases of Chief Bernard Ominayak and Lubicon Lake Band v Canada (1990) and Marshall (Mikmaq Tribal Society) (1991), that self-determination is held by the indigenous people.
Common Article 1(1) of the ICESCR and ICCPR provides that everyone has the right to self-determination and that right is inclusive of the right to determine their own political status and pursue their social, economic and cultural development without interference. Australia is obliged to recognize self-determination in line with the Charter of United Nations. This guarantees that the right will not form the basis of secession of indigenous people in colonial countries. It is provided under the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People that any actions opposing to the Charter of United Nations are prohibited. The United Nations General Assembly Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of United Nations also provides that the principle should not be interpreted as any action that encourages or authorizes which would lead to destruction to all or part of the territorial integrity or political unity in compliance with the equal rights and self-determination and therefore, possessed of a government representing all people of the territory. The United Nations Human Rights Treaty also confirms this statement. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has yet to recognize the people’s right to declare secession from a state.
The Australian Government does not agree that the indigenous people have the right to secession. However, there are some indigenous leaders in Australia who believes that the right to self-determination includes the right of secession. Indigenous people in Australia do indeed have the right to self-determination but does not have the right of secession. It is also clear that this concept has been widely accepted by the indigenous people in Australia. Nevertheless, the extent of these rights still remains as a political debate.
The concept of self-determination, however, has no binding force in Australia. It is merely a policy for the indigenous people and it was never given a legal status in Australia. It is the discretion of the government whether to comply with the policy and even if the government chooses not to comply with it, there would be no legal repercussions. The government is also entitled to make necessary changes to the policy at any time.
There are several criticisms on the right of self-determination. It is clear that not all the members of the United Nation are ready to apply this concept. It also an imprecise concept there is no specific definition of self-determination. Too much focus on self-determination can also be dangerous as it would give rises to problems such as intolerance and the people would not be able to co-exist peacefully. In order to achieve self-determination peacefully, it may also challenge the integrity of the territory. The United Nations should develop better ways of addressing these issues in order to prevent any conflicts or violence.
Essentially, the right to self-determination is the right of a people to determine its own destiny. In particular, the principle allows a people to choose its own political status and to determine its own form of economic, cultural and social development. Exercise of this right can result in a variety of different outcomes ranging from political independence through to full integration within a state. The importance lies in the right of choice, so that the outcome of a people's choice should not affect the existence of the right to make a choice. In practice, however, the possible outcome of an exercise of self-determination will often determine the attitude of governments towards the actual claim by a people or nation. Thus, while claims to cultural autonomy may be more readily recognized by states, claims to independence are more likely to be rejected by them. Nevertheless, the right to self-determination is recognized in international law as a right of process (not of outcome) belonging to peoples and not to states or governments.
1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that "the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government." Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A (III)(1948), Art. 21; The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), in force Mar. 23. 1976, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, Art. 1; The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), in force Jan. 3, 1976, 999 U.N.T.S. 3, Art. 1.
2. ICCPR, Art.1; ICESCR, Art. 1; see also Karen Parker & Lyn Neylon, Jus Cogens: Compelling the Law of Human Rights, 12 Hastings Int. & Comp. L. Rev. 411, 440 (1989), drawing on discussion of the right to self-determination in A. Critescu, The Right to Self-determination, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/404/Rev. 1, U.N. Sales No. E.80.XIV.3 (1980) and H. Gros Espiell, The Right to Self-Determination, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/405/Rev.1, U.N. Sales No. E.79.XIV.5 (1980).
3. Professor Dr Mme Erica-Irene Daes (* 18 Sept. 1925, † 12 Feb. 2017) was an academic, diplomat, and United Nations expert best known for her almost 20 years work with the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations (1984–2001) promoting the cause of the world's indigenous peoples, during which time she authored many United Nations reports on Indigenous rights issues and was a driving force behind the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.[2][3]
Known for
Chairing the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations (1984–2001);
authoring many United Nations reports on Indigenous rights issues;
initial drafting & a driving force behind the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
She was the Founding Chairperson & Special Rapporteur, United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations; Member, United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.
30. The Vaddukkoddai Declaration of 1976 marks a clean rupture from any further attempts by the Tamil leadership to negotiate a dual state. The Declaration calls upon all Tamils to work for the sovereignty of Tamil Eelam.
31. Note that some of the colonizers were actually "break-away" colonizers - people who had rejected their original sovereign in favor of self-rule in the "former" colony.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that the U.S. Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and therefore the rights and privileges it confers upon American citizens could never apply to them.
Judgment reversed and suit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Persons of African descent cannot be, nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Const. Plaintiff is without standing to file a suit.
The Property Clause is only applicable to lands possessed at the time of ratification (1787). As such, Congress cannot ban slavery in the territories. Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional.
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from freeing slaves brought into federal territories.
THE UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES...
ARTICLE 4: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, IN EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, HAVE THE RIGHT TO AUTONOMY OR SELF-GOVERNMENT IN MATTERS RELATING TO THEIR INTERNAL AND LOCAL AFFAIRS, AS WELL AS WAYS AND MEANS FOR FINANCING THEIR AUTONOMOUS FUNCTIONS.
WE AS UNITED YAHSHARALLAH MU'UR NATION OPERATE AUTONOMOUSLY FROM THE EMPIRE WASHITAW MINISTRY, 501C3 (YET TO BE DISSOLVED). THEREFORE, WE ACKNOWLEDGED THE LATE EMPRESS VERDIACEE 'TIARA' WASHITAW (WASHINGTON) TUNICA (TURNER) GOSTON EL-BEY, AS STATED IN THE ABOVE VIDEO OF THE LATE CROWN PRINCE HUTAN TU'PAK BEY. READ ARTICLE 9 IN THE UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, IT STATES SPECIFICALLY...
ARTICLE 9: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND INDIVIDUALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO BELONG TO AN INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY OR NATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRADITIONS AND CUSTOMS OF THE COMMUNITY OR NATION CONCERNED. NO DISCRIMINATION OF ANY KIND MAY ARISE FROM THE EXERCISE OF SUCH A RIGHT.
THEREFORE, THIS ONE REALLY NEEDS TO BE PAID CLOSE ATTENTION TOO, ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE THAT ARE SELF-IDENTIFIED AS INDIGENOUS; THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BELONG TO AN INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY OR NATION...
ARTICLE 33 - 1: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THEIR OWN IDENTITY OR MEMBERSHIP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS. THIS DOES NOT IMPAIR THE RIGHT OF INDIGENOUS INDIVIDUALS TO OBTAIN CITIZENSHIP OF THE STATES IN WHICH THEY LIVE. 2. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE STRUCTURES AND TO SELECT THE MEMBERSHIP OF THEIR INSTITUTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR OWN PROCEDURES.
AS UNITED YAHSHARALLAH MU'UR NATION WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO IDENTIFY OUR NATIONALS, BY WAY OF NATIONALITY IDS, AND AFFIDAVITS TO BE PUT ON THE PUBLIC RECORD AND ETC... (NOTE: THE FACT THAT THE 'AFFIDAVITS' ARE ON PUBLIC RECORD SHOWS THAT A "DECLARATION", AND "PROCLAMATION" HAS BEEN MADE.
ARTICLE 35: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF INDIVIDUALS TO THEIR COMMUNITIES.
ARTICLE 44: ALL THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS RECOGNIZED HEREIN ARE EQUALLY GUARANTEED TO MALE AND FEMALE INDIGENOUS INDIVIDUALS.
Explanation of the purpose of Reclamation
Proclamation / Reclamation is to help establish one's nationality, a connection to an actual nation and land mass. There are "Negroes" and "Europeans" (Albions) that strives to keep us in N.B.C. (Negro, Black and Colored) status, i.e. denationalized, stateless and landless. And if you are not part of a Nation, you do not come under National or International Law. The Moor (Mu'ur) nationality issue is a threat to slave-holders and their “negro-bred” overseers, alike. Prophet Noble Drew Ali stated... "Come and link yourselves with the families of nations." The "Families of Nations" went by THE LAW OF NATIONS OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS FROM THE NEW EDITION, by Joseph Chitty, Esq. Barrister At Law WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES AND REFERENCES, By Edward D. Ingraham, Esq., which state, "The 'Law of Nations' is the private international law between sovereign individuals, families, tribes, courts, grand juries, townships, counties, states and nations." This has been well established under various international conventions for thousands of years. All the administrative rules and regulations, statutes and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and constitutions of various countries are based ultimately on the organic “Law of Nations." The “Law of Nations” is the “Law of Sovereigns,” derived from the principles of natural law. It is from the “Law of Nations” that constitutions are created and lawful de jure governments consummated. Any government that portends to hold power and wields authority without being answerable to these Laws are de facto and unlawful governments ruling by occupation, usurpation and exploitation. De facto governments justify their existence by the rule of force and coercion instead of the rule of Law. It is important to KNOW that sovereignty DOES NOT stand on its own. It is derived from your NATIONALITY... being part of a nation; as it is a part of your substantive rights, and is distinguishable i.e., unalienable (inalienable) rights, civil rights, and political rights.
Furthermore, we are a global people and have existed on all "so-called" seven land masses (continents) during various times of our over 3 billion year existence on planet Earth ; the Americas were given to us to possess (birth right) and inhabit by the (Ngu) Pharaoh of (Ta-Mu' Ra) Egypt. (Read"FORBIDDEN ARCHEOLOGY" by Michael Cremo and Richard L. Thompson and the "MOORISH HOLY KORAN CIRCLE SEVEN" prepared by Prophet Noble Drew Ali). "EGYPT (TA MERI, KEMET) WAS HERE IN AMERICAS!" The Egyptians came to the Grand Canyon around 1700 BC. This is proven by the fact that there are 18 temples in Arizona at the Grand Canyon. Below is an article from the "ARIZONA GAZETTE" Friday Evening March 12, 1909. Also , in "ARCHEOLOGICAL COVERUPS" by David Hatcher Childress, he states, "Perhaps the most amazing suppression of all is the excavation of an Egyptian tomb by the Smithsonian itself in Arizona. A lengthy front page story of the Phoenix Gazette on April 5, 1909, gave a highly detailed report of the discovery and excavation of a rock-cut vault by an expedition led by a Professor S.A. Jordan of the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian, however, claims to have absolutely no knowledge of the discovery or its discoverers."
BRANDED “Blacks” are classed as NON-DESCENDABLE & are subject to the ‘colorable’ Democracy bondage as veiled under the 14th Amendment and 3/5ths Person Clause. The 14th Amendment & the 3/5ths Person Clause was politically created to make ‘artificial persons’ (ie., corp. SLAVES) out of Natural Persons.
Reparations, means “to repair a nation". Thus, the reason why there has not been ANY reparations nor relief for a “so-called” ‘black’ nation of people is because they have no Nationality or Nation .
Nationalization (not 'Naturalization', as so-called Blacks are the"Indigenous Aboriginal people or the "Natural Inhabitants" of North Amexem (America, Amaru Ka). Therefore "Nationalization" is most important to a Mu'ur (Moor) because according to the Constitution for the united States of America in Article 1, Section 2, it states that we are classified as 3/5th person, a sub-human, a beast or monster (see "BALLENTINE'S LAW DICTIONARY", 1948 Edition. 'Human Being' is defined as follows: 'See monster' . From the same dictionary, 'monster' is defined: 'A human-being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal...a monster hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land, albeit brought forth in marriage'). Yet in the same contract (document) in Article 6, it states that the Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution, it's Laws (united supreme court case law) and Treaties. Prior to this status (classification), we had treaties (Treaty of Peace and Friendship of Morocco, Treaty of Marrakesh, Barbary Treaties, Camp Holmes Treaty and etc...) with the united States. Therefore, we do NOT have to be classified (status) as such. A Treaty is an International Law ‘Compact’ that is made and agreed upon between two or more nations or sovereigns, with a view to public welfare of those treating nations. Thus, treaties, like the nation’s Constitution, becomes the ‘Supreme Law of the Land’, and are to be lawfully recognized, applied, treated, and enforced accordingly. And the officers in government, the politicians, and the judges of every State are bound thereby. (Note: Spiritual being however cannot be found in "BALLENTINE'S LAW DICTIONARY"- so in the civil/UCC/maritime admiralty fiction Oz world [MATRIX] it does not exist, this is why Indigenous people must define themselves as Spiritual beings and NOT [just] human beings).
In the "ORAL STATEMENTS AND PROPHECIES OF PROPHET NOBLE DREW ALI," Bro. J. Foster-Bey of Temple 4 and 25 said that the Holy Prophet Noble Drew Ali said, "A beggar nation cannot attain to its highest degree of spirituality."
... As Dr. John Henrik Clarke stated..."We are a people searching for a NATIONALITY! ... A name of a people must relate them instantaneously to land, history and culture... And when you think instant-aneously to LAND, you think of NATIONALITY!"
Let's look at the definition of LAND, according to the "BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 4th Deluxe Edition" LAND in the most general sense, comprehends any ground, soil, or earth whatsoever; as fields, meadows, pastures, woods, MOORS, waters, marshes, furzes, and heath.
The word "MOORS" is embedded in the definition of LAND
Land is the foundation of nationality and the name ‘Moor’ symbolizes the birthright ties (Jus Sanguinis) or heritage (Jus Soli). In international law, negroes, blacks and coloreds in the said United States Corporation are listed as stateless, i.e., landless. Or are we? According to law heir land cannot be sold!
"THEREFORE DECLARE YOUR NATIONALITY TODAY!" ... JOIN US ...
UNDER 26 CFR 1.871-2: Non-Resident Alien outside the General Venue and Jurisdiction of the United States (THE UNITED STATES IS LOCATED IN WASHINGTON D.C., see O.C.G.A. 11-9-307(H) ,NOT YAMASSEE TERRITORY WHERE WE ARE DOMICILED) . A map drawn by Eman Bowen a geographer to King George shows Yamassee Territory before the mass invasion from Europe to steal the land. The company that king George sent here was call the Virginia Company before the Company name was changed to the United States of America,Inc EIN #2193946 . The Company known as The state of Georgia,Inc; was named after him.
Genesis 15:13-14 “400 Years of Slavery & Oppression”
Exodus 3:13-15 “I Am Sent Me”
Deuteronomy 4:41-43 “Cities of Refuge”
Isaiah 14 , 49:22 , 52 , 60 , 62 “Salvation”
Jeremiah 49:38 “My Throne”
1) The IRS is not a U.S. government agency.
It is an agency of the IMF.
(Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al.
CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I,
Public Law 94-564,
Senate report 94-1148 pg. 5967,
Reorganization Plan No. 26,
Public Law 102-391)
2) The IMF is an agency of the U.N.
(Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed. page 816)
3) The United States has NOT had a Treasury since 1921.
(41 Stat. Ch. 214 page 654)
4) The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF
(Presidential Documents Volume 29 -No. 4 page 113, 22 U.S.C 285-288)
5) The United States does not have any employees because there is no longer a United States.
No more reorganizations.
After over 200 years of bankruptcy it is finally over.
(Executive Order 12803)
6) The FCC, CIA, FBI, NASA and all of the other alphabet gangs were never part of the U.S. government. Even though the "U.S. Government" held stock in the various agencies.
(U.S. v. Strang, 254 US 491
Lewis v. US, 680 F.2d, 1239)
7) Social Security Numbers are issued by the UN through the IMF. The application for a Social Security # is the SS5 form. The Dep't of the Treasury (IMF) issues the SS5 forms do not state who publishes them while the old form states they are Department of the Treasury
(20 CFR Chap. 111 Subpart B 422.103 (b))
8) There are NO Judicial courts in America and have not been since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statues and Codes. Executive Adminstrators enforce Statues and Codes.
(FRC v. GE 281 US 464
Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178)
9) There have Not been any Judges in America since 1789.
There have just been administrators.
(FRC v. GE 281 US 464
Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178)
10) According to GATT you must have a Social Security number.
House Report (103-826)
11) New York City is defined in the Federal Regulations as the United Nations. Rudolph Guiliani stated on C-Span that "New York City is the capital of the World". For once, he told the truth.
(20 CFR Chap. 111, subpart B 422.103 (b) (2) (2)
https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ102/PLAW-115publ102.pdf?sfns=mo
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_citizenship_law
Ahyh
Sunil Aaron Kumar : Sharma
Yahsharallah
61
The Decision Makers
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on May 11, 2020