ii

NATURAL PEOPLE AND PARTIES BELOW

Natural People

A living Woman and Man, Nura Washington Bey, and Nassor Mooruts Bey plaintiff-appellants; Aboriginal Indigenous American/Al Moroccan Moors of the Land by heritage, and rightful Heirs - not lost at sea. We affirm and declare our Right of Reversion of the state. We make no claim with respect to the title and misrepresented name, man of straw, and nom de guerre being a title and the spurious creation of the foreign de facto United States corporate operators, actors, and owners. We surrender and assign any and all reversionary interests to the foreign Unites States and subsidiaries for full ‘acquittanced discharge’ settlement and ‘Closure’ of our reliance. Title 12 U.S.C. 95 (a) (2) and we do not assume any liability or debts however contrived among its associates. We do not consent to stand as ‘Surety’ for the foreign UNITED STATES / U.S. corporations, entities, owners, directors or administrators, nor for its subsidiaries or associates at any point or moment in time.

Respondents

Margaret R Taylor, Ryan Zenko, Steven D Hogan, Todd A Magyarosi, Christopher A Miller, Audrey L Peterson, David Gee, et. al., were the defendant-appellees in the other two cases in the court below.

1

QUESTIONS PRESENTED .......................................................................................... i

NATURAL PEOPLE AND PARTIES BELOW ............................................................ ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................... 3

OPINIONS BELOW ...................................................................................................... 4

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ............................................................................... 4

CONSTITUTIONAL AND TREATY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ............................... 4

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED.................................................................... 5

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................................................................................... 7

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT .................................................................... 9

I. Sovereign American People of the Land by heritage, and living beneficiaries have the constitutionally guaranteed right NOT to be arbitrarily deprived of unrestricted access to justice through a de jure and competent court of justice. ....................................................................................... 10

II. Sovereign American People of the Land by heritage, and living beneficiaries have the constitutional guarantees by treaty to have the imperative question of constitutional law subject-matter heard and decided through unrestricted access to a de jure court of justice without obstruction by alleged ‘officers of the court’, that should be settled by law; by this Supreme Court for the Republic. ............................................................................ 10

III. Sovereign American People of the Land, by heritage, and living beneficiaries are owed Amendment VII Trial by Jury for human right violations along with the proper unbiased Article III Judge functioning in Article III capacity for remedy and recovery so that the alleged government actors are held to the principles of the organic American Constitution when they unlawfully convert human rights into fee / tax imposed privileges and criminally prosecute innocent people. ..................................................................... 10

IV. Sovereign American People of the Land by heritage, and living beneficiaries are entitled to NOT be compelled under color-of-authority and colorable statutes to waive their constitutionally protected right to the security and privacy of their personal financial effects and papers as a condition to gain access to de jure court for due process of justice when unrestricted access to the court is already a protected right. ................................ 12

2

V. Sovereign American People to the Land by heritage, and living beneficiaries are NOT 14th Amendment U.S. or federal citizens; thus, by right are not obligated to private commercial court fees / taxes. The courts are in conflict with Title 12 U.S.C. 95 (a) (2) when expenses are demanded from the subjugated Sovereign People under occupation post 1492 invasion, inquisition doctrine of discovery, and colonial powers. By law, an acquittance is given by the trust administrators to serve as evidence of discharge of any debt since all debts are already paid. .......................................... 13

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 14

APPENDIX …………………………………………………………………….……………. 16 Appendix-1 (Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s David J. Smith and Gloria M. Powell dismissal of appeals of Amendment VII Common Law Complaint for not consenting to pay private commercial Federal Reserve Debt Notes) Appendix-2 ( United States District Court Middle District Tampa’s Steven D.Merryday’s deliberate misconstrued affidavit as a motion request and dismissal of Amendment VII Common Law Complaint for not consenting to pay private commercial Federal Reserve Debt Notes and not-consenting to change lawful status to ‘pauper’ under sworn affidavit) Appendix-3 (United States District Court Middle District Tampa’s Julie S. Sneed dismissal of Amendment VII Common Law Complaint for not consenting to disclose private financial details and other assets, not-consenting to change lawful status to ‘pauper’ under sworn affidavit, and not-consenting to pay private commercial Federal Reserve Debt Notes) Appendix-4 (United States District Court Middle District Tampa’s Steven D. Merryday deceptively attempted to fabricate 14th amendment / U.S. / federal citizens with a zip code exemption and a false statement that the living Sovereign Americans to the land, by heritage were claiming residence and converting their Compulsory Judicial Notice Affidavit to a ‘motion’ that he then denied, and then dismissed and ordered closed; Amendment VII Common Law Complaint for not consenting to pay private commercial Federal Reserve Debt Notes, not-consenting to disclose private financial details, and not-consenting to change lawful status to ‘pauper’ under sworn affidavit)

3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

11th Cir. R. 42-1(b) ---------------------------------------------------------------------3, 7, 10 12 U.S.C. 95 (a) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ii, 2, 10 18 U.S.C. § 1621 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4, 6 28 U.S.C. § 1746 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4, 6 28 U.S.C. § 1914 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2, 5, 6 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3, 5 68th Congress Sess. II. Ch 204 --------------------------------------------------------------- 9 Amendment I. Constitution for the united States of America ----------------------- 1 Amendment IV. Constitution for the united States of America --------------------- 2 Amendment IX. Constitution for the united States of America ----------------- 2, 8 Amendment VII. Constitution for the united States of America -------------- i, 2, 9 Article 21. Morocco Empire Treaty of Peace and Friendship (1787) ---------- 2, 9 Article I § 10. Constitution for the united States of America ---------------------- 11 Article I § 9, Clause 3. Constitution for the united States of America ------------ 6 Article IV. Constitution for the united States of America -------------------------- 10 Article VI. Constitution for the united States of America -------------------- i, 1, 10 Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971) ---------------------------------------------- 8 Clearfield Trust Company vs. United States 318 U. S. 363 – 371 (1942) ------ 11 Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). ------------------------------------ 5 Crandall v. State of Nevada 73 U.S. 35 (1867) ----------------------------------------- 8 Federal Rule Appellate Procedure 24(a) 1 (A) -------------------------------------- 3, 10 Florida Constitution Article I § 21 --------------------------------------------------------- 8 Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 155 (1966) --------------------------------------------- 8 Hale v Henkel 201 US 43 (1906) ------------------------------------------------------------ 9 Homeland Security v. MacLean 574 U.S. ___ (2015) -------------------------------- 10 Magna Carta Clause 40 (1225) -------------------------------------------------------------- 8 Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 125 ---------------------------------------------------- 10 Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105 -------------------------------------------------------------- 8 Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969) ----------------------------------- 8 Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649.644 ----------------------------------------------------- 8 Sundry Free Moors Act 1789 - 1790 -------------------------------------------------------- 9 Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886). --------------------------------------- 12

4

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI _________♦ _________

Nura Washington Bey, In Propria Persona, and Nassor Mooruts Bey; Moors, In Propria Persona (own proper selves; In full Life, age of majority) thereby request for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit filed on October 19, 2016. There was no good-faith determination of constitutional law in the Moor’s case in either the United States District Court Middle District of Florida Tampa, or the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that changed the caption of the case to be different than what was filed in the Common Law Complaint.

OPINIONS BELOW

The court of appeals opinion (No. 16-16598-E) affirming the judgment of the case in the district court (No. 8:16-cv-02515-SDM-JSS), entered December 21, 2016, is reproduced at Appendix-1. The district court’s final judgment in the case October 17, 2016 is reproduced at Appendix-2.

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

The court of appeals final judgment was entered on December 21, 2016. This court’s jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) where cases in the courts of appeals may be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND TREATY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

This writ of certiorari case involves Article VI; Amendments: I, IV, VII, IX to the organic Constitution for the united States Constitution, and Article 21 to the Morocco Empire Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1787. Article VI in the organic Constitution for the united States of America Provides: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding…” Amendment I in the organic Constitution for the united States of America provides: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

5

Amendment IV in the organic Constitution for the united States of America provides: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”,

Amendment VII in the organic Constitution for the united States of America provides: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” Amendment IX in the organic Constitution for the united States of America provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Article 21. Morocco Empire Treaty of Peace and Friendship (1787) provides: “if a Citizen of the United States and a Moor has a controversy, the Law of the Country [constitution] shall take place and equal Justice [fair due process] shall be rendered…”

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

This case involves Title 12 U.S.C. 95 (a)

(2) Any payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery of property or interest therein, made to or for the account of the United States, or as otherwise directed, pursuant to this section or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder shall to the extent thereof be a full acquittance and discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same; and no person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with the administration of, or in pursuance of and in reliance on, this section, or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder.

This case involves 28 U.S.C. § 1914

(a) The clerk of each district court shall require the parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in such court, whether by original process, removal or otherwise, to pay a filing fee of $350, except that on application for a writ of habeas corpus the filing fee shall be $5. (b) The clerk shall collect from the parties such additional fees only as are prescribed by the Judicial Conference of the United States.

6

(c) Each district court by rule or standing order may require advance payment of fees.

This case involves 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)(h)

(a) (1) Subject to subsection (b), any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant’s belief that the person is entitled to redress.

(h) As used in this section, the term “prisoner” means any person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program. This case involves Federal Rule Appellate Procedure 24(a) 1 (A)

(a) Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis.

(1) Motion in the District Court. Except as stated in Rule 24(a)(3), a party to a district-court action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court. The party must attach an affidavit that: (A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the party's inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs; (B) claims an entitlement to redress; and (C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.

This case involves 11th Cir. R. 42-1(b) Dismissal of Appeals.

“(b) Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute. Except [exclude] as otherwise provided for briefs and appendices in civil appeals in 11th Cir. R. 42-2 and 42-3, when appellant fails to file a brief or other required papers within the time permitted, or otherwise fails to comply with the applicable rules, the clerk shall issue a notice to counsel, or to pro se appellant, that upon expiration of 14 days from the date thereof the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution if the default has not been remedied by filing the brief or other required papers and a motion to file documents out of time. Within that 14-day notice period a party

7

in default must seek leave of the court, by appropriate motion, to file documents out of time or otherwise remedy the default. Failure to timely file such motion will result in dismissal for want of prosecution.”

This case involves 28 U.S.C. § 1746

Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:

This case involves 18 U.S.C. § 1621: Whoever—

(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Nassor and Nura (“Moors”), living Sovereign Americans to the Land by heritage filed a second Common Law action in the district court for human rights violations; protected constitutional and treaty rights violations, and fraud against alleged government people. The Common Law action cited United States Supreme Court stare decisis and res judicata with relevant constitutional articles and amendments where access to the courts for due

8

process for justice must be unrestricted without sale/sell. The alleged ‘officers of the court’ deceptively applied colorable 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) to compel the Moors to continue ‘In forma pauperis’. This statute applies to 14th amendment persons and prisoners when Moors, Nura and Nassor were/are neither persons or prisoners. The ‘officers of the court’ were reminded of their oath obligations to the organic Constitution for the united States of America, but they all blatantly ignored the authority - supplanting it with statutory special color-of-law rules, where they coerce involuntary waiver of rights to privacy of financial papers and property through their ‘In forma pauperis’ permit form, and only the officers of the court claim that they “authorize the commencement of an action” NOT the Constitution for the united States of American. The Republic. (Appendix-3 08/30/16 Order) “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.” Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). The Moors would not consent to waive their rights by swearing to the colorable court’s affidavit as being paupers, nor would they consent to waiving their fourth amendment right by coerced disclosure of their private financial and property details, nor would they waive the right to unrestricted access to justice through the courts without sale/sell to obtain access to a de jure court through demanded colorable statutory fee / tax. 28 U.S. Code § 1914, so Julie S. Sneed, and Steven D. Merryday deceptively under false pretext, fabricated that Nura and Nassor (Sovereign Americans of the Land by heritage) claimed to be residence in “Wimauma, Florida” to place them in the Florida area of the District of Columbia; a federal district and proceeding as persons and prisoners ‘In forma pauperis’ status that they then denied by Steven D. Merryday (Appendix-4 09/29/16). The Moors filed objections with cited American Constitution and United States Supreme Court authority several times by affidavit of facts, but these ‘officers of the colorable court’ deceptively and intentionally misconstrued Moor’s affidavits of fact to be deliberately changed and misclassified as ‘motions’, after which they dismissed the fabricated ‘motion’ and closed the Common Law Complaint. (Appendix-4 09/29/16). Nura and Nassor have no remedy or recovery, and this is the second case filed at this district court seeking justice resulting in semantic deceit; and denial of proper Article III Judge functioning in an Article III capacity with the denial of required Amendment VII Common Law Trial by Jury. For good cause, the Moors filed this Common Law Action because under color-of-law, color-of-authority, and in collusion; the respondent-defendants

9

acted to denationalize the Moors; terrorized them, shackled and falsely arrested them, stripped them naked and put in solitarily confinement; their protected human-rights were unlawfully converted to fabricated infamous criminal charges for purposes to enslave. Essentially, the Mors were kidnapped; prosecuted; and the respondent-defendants violently destroyed their automobile and tampered with case evidence. They imposed prohibited bills of attainder/bills of pains and penalties with excessive fines against both of them. See violation of Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, Constitution for the united States of America. Nura and Nassor are enduring severe injuries and damages that were directly caused by the unlawful actions of defendant-respondents under color of law. Nassor even lost his source of gainful livelihood for the both of them along with the pains previously mentioned for which they have been denied both remedy or any means to enforce unalienable birthrights to prevent violations against those rights, or recovery to get renewed possession of their lives from the tyranny and oppression. Nura and Nassor filed an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals providing the Appellate Brief and Certificate of Interested Natural People with cited United States Supreme Court stare decisis and res judicata with relevant constitutional articles and amendments where these authorities confirm access to the courts for due process of justice is unrestricted without sale/sell. After three objections to the appeals court’s coercion using colorable statutes: 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and 18 U.S.C. § 1621, the Moors would not consent to waive their rights by sworn affidavit as being impoverished, nor consent to waiving their fourth amendment right by disclosure of their private financial and property details, nor waive the right to unrestricted access to justice through the courts without sale/sell through colorable statutory demanded private corporate court fees / taxes under 28 U.S. Code § 1914. As a consequence, David J. Smith and Gloria M. Powell dismissed the Common Law appeals for “want of prosecution” and “failure to prosecute” because the Sovereign Americans of the Land would not waive their birthrights (Appendix-1 12/21/16).

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

The Writ must be granted because the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision conflicts with stare decisis, res judicata, the organic Constitution for the united States of America, the Republic, and they have failed trustee obligations that leaves the Sovereign American appellant-plaintiffs without judicial due process for remedy or recovery.

10

I. Sovereign American People of the Land by heritage, and living beneficiaries have the constitutionally guaranteed right NOT to be arbitrarily deprived of unrestricted access to justice through a de jure and competent court of justice. The Writ must be granted because the Court of Appeals dismissed the the Common-Law Complaint for colorable statutory “want of persecution” “failure to prosecute” for non-payment of court fee / taxes using private commercial Federal Reserve Debt notes, and for not consenting to a change of lawful social status to be ‘paupers’ which conflicts with Common Law Bill of Rights guarantees; stare decisis, and Statutes at Large enacted by de jure Acts of Congress. Nura and Nassor are owed Common Law under Amendment VII. II. Sovereign American People of the Land by heritage, and living beneficiaries have the constitutional guarantees by treaty to have the imperative question of constitutional law subject-matter heard and decided through unrestricted access to a de jure court of justice without obstruction by alleged ‘officers of the court’, that should be settled by law; by this Supreme Court for the Republic. The decision to dismiss the appeal and closing the Common-Law complaint pursuant to colorable statutory rule 11th Cir. R. 42-1(b) is opposed to both the organic American Constitution and Florida State Republic Constitution mandates and restraints governing access to justice and revenue generation; therefore, unconstitutional. III. Sovereign American People of the Land, by heritage, and living beneficiaries are owed Amendment VII Trial by Jury for human right violations along with the proper unbiased Article III Judge functioning in Article III capacity for remedy and recovery so that the alleged government actors are held to the principles of the organic American Constitution when they unlawfully convert human rights into fee / tax imposed privileges and criminally prosecute innocent people. Sovereign American People’s Common Law complaint was dismissed by alleged ‘officers of the court’ David J. Smith and Gloria M. Powell for ‘failure to prosecute’ ‘want of prosecution’ under said colorable statutory rules even though there is no lawful obligation for Nura and Nassor to waive their protected rights to have unrestricted access to the court. All lower courts are unreasonably and arbitrarily blocking the means of remedy and recovery for human rights violations leaving an unreasonable burden of injury and distress on the people while alleged government defendant-respondents escape their criminal acts against humanity. This practice is morally and constitutionally wrong.

11

In the United States Supreme Court case, Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971), "…requiring payment of court fees and expenses as a condition precedent to obtaining court relief [are] unconstitutional…” In the Florida Constitution Article I Section 21: “Access to courts. - The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.” In the united States Supreme Court case, Crandall v. State of Nevada 73 U.S. 35 (1867). Natural People are “…entitled to free access not only to the principal departments established at Washington, but also to its judicial tribunals and public offices in every state in the Union…” In Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 155 (1966), cited in Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649.644 "Constitutional 'rights' would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied." “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.” [court clerk fee / taxes] Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105 “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license [permission/authorization] as a prerequisite to exercise of right... may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right." Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969) The United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit, “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights." Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946 The obstruction of Common Law remedy and recovery through the blockage of Amendment VII Trial by Jury practiced by alleged ‘officers of the court’ for injuries caused by ‘alleged government employees’ leaving the Mors without remedy or recovery abrogates Amendment IX in the Constitution for the united States of America that reads: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Amendment IX. Constitution for the united States of America The alleged ‘officers of the court’ even violate the February 11, 1225 Magna Carta (The Great Charter) with respect to principles when dealing with grievances because everybody is subject to the law – even the king – in which due process of justice was not for sale, “To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.” Magna Carta Clause 40 (1225) Westminster, London British Library, and ‘free men’ have the right to justice and a fair trial. Magna Carta Clause 39 (1225)

12

In de jure 68th Congress Sess. II. Ch 204 clerks of district courts cannot collect fees, and other inconsistent laws to this act must be repealed. “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That the fees hereinafter provided for, and no other, shall be charged and collected by clerks of the district courts of the United States for services performed by them or their assistants: Provided, That all laws or parts of laws inconsistent or repugnant to the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed; but nothing in this Act shall repeal or in any way enlarge or modify the provisions of the Act of July 20, 1892 (Twenty-seventh United States Statutes at Large, page 252), as amended by the Act of June 25, 1910, (Thirty-sixth United States Statutes at Large, page 866), and the Act of June 27, 1922 (Forty -second United States Statutes at Large, page 666)…” Approved February 11, 1925 H.R. 5420. Public No. 393. [emphasis added] 43 Stat. 857, Chap 204 Amendment VII in the Constitution for the united States of America, the Republic protects the right: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved…”

In the Sundry Free Moors Act 1789 - 1790 the four Moors being falsely and forcibly held to the branding of “negro” status; as established by colonizing Europeans; petitioned and successfully plead their legal status case that confirmed their nationality. The Moors were assured the right to a fair trial as subjects of a foreign nation by the Court of General Sessions. In the 1787 Morocco Empire Treaty of Peace and Friendship, if a Citizen of the United States and a Moor has a controversy, the Law of the Country [constitution] shall take place and equal Justice [fair due process] shall be rendered…” Article 21. Morocco Empire Treaty of Peace and Friendship (1787). IV. Sovereign American People of the Land by heritage, and living beneficiaries are entitled to NOT be compelled under color-of-authority and colorable statutes to waive their constitutionally protected right to the security and privacy of their personal financial effects and papers as a condition to gain access to de jure court for due process of justice when unrestricted access to the court is already a protected right. In the united Supreme Court case, Hale v Henkel 201 US 43 (1906), Natural People have immunity of private papers and property from seizure except under a warrant of the law that can only be taken from us by due process of law pursuant to Article IV in the Constitution for the united States of America.

13

In collusion, the alleged ‘officers of appeals court’ used colorable Federal Rule Appellate Procedure 24(a) 1 (A) to unconstitutionally compel Nura and Nassor to change their standing and status as ‘paupers’ and to disclose private financial details as a condition of gaining access the court for due process of justice, or give the District Court Federal Reserve Debt Notes for them when access to the court is by secured right and not for sale. After three filed objections to appeals court demands that cited stare decisis, res judicata, United States Supreme Court, and constitutional amendment authorities, the appeals clerk used the district court’s 11th Cir. R. 42-1(b) to unconstitutionally dismiss the Common Law Complaint because Nura and Nassor refused to consent to waive their protected rights. Moreover, a dismissal for ‘want of persecution’ ‘failure to persecute’ is a misrepresentation, because commercial court fee/tax revenue generation is not relevant to persecution or ‘pursuing at law.’ The filed Common Law Complaint is indeed proper pursuance at law jus persequendi. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit statutory Rules: 11th Cir. R. 42-1(b), and Federal Rule Appellate Procedure 24(a) 1 (A) are NOT law and repugnant to the organic American Constitution. See Article VI in Constitution for the united States of America. In United States Supreme Court Case, Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean 574 U.S. ___ (2015) the court affirmed, ‘…prohibited by law…” regulations do not qualify as “law” and interpreting the word “law” does not include rules and regulations. In the united States Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 125 “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation, which would abrogate them.” "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442 V. Sovereign American People to the Land by heritage, and living beneficiaries are NOT 14th Amendment U.S. or federal citizens; thus, by right are not obligated to private commercial court fees / taxes. The courts are in conflict with Title 12 U.S.C. 95 (a) (2) when expenses are demanded from the subjugated Sovereign People under occupation post 1492 invasion, inquisition doctrine of discovery, and colonial powers. By law, an acquittance is given by

14

the trust administrators to serve as evidence of discharge of any debt since all debts are already paid. In the United States Supreme Court case, Clearfield Trust Company vs. United States 318 U. S. 363 – 371 (1942), “Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen … where ‘private corporate commercial paper’ [Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs)] and ‘Securities’ [Checks] is concerned. … For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government.” (Clearfield Doctrine). Private commercial paper ‘Debt Notes’ that are imposed upon The People are not backed by Gold and Silver as required by Article I § 10 in the Constitution for the united States of America, the Republic. The Clearfield Doctrine as established and binding, ‘stare decisis’ that protects the people when government engage in private fiat debt notes; as such, the de facto entity once deemed as legitimate government has failed its constitutional and trust purpose then becomes bound by the inferior and common rules and laws that govern ‘private corporations’.

Lawfully, if the alleged government officials at any level, government agency contractors; employees, or personnel (i.e., officers of the lower courts in this case) who portend or intend to demand; to enforce; to compel, or to seek to exercise the formerly de jure powers once vested in them; such an act or actions (by these courts) would constitute usurpation, misrepresentation, impersonation of office, extortion; unlawfully converting private corporate debt onto the Natural People, and other related forms of Trespass and Misprision. Any acts, legislation, or processes used by, or initiated by a now de facto operation of governance deemed to ‘compel’ the people to some specific performance based on its ‘Corporate’ fees / taxes or upon its ‘Corporation’s Statutes’ then any such act, actions, legislation, or impositions is in violation of law - in violation of the Rights of the People upon whom they seek to enforce their (now prima facie) private Corporation Rules.

CONCLUSION

Sovereign Americans to the Land by heritage, and living beneficiaries challenge blocked access to de jure court for due process of justice because by secured right; they are owed unrestricted access to an Amendment VII Common Law Trial by Jury and an unbiased Article III Judge functioning in an Article III capacity. Besides the fact that it’s impossible to pay anything with private Federal Reserve Debt Notes, Nura and Nassor have no obligation to pay anything - not to mention the unlawful practice of denying access to the court is based

APPENDIX

16