IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND,
Sultan DAVID ROSSER-EL,
P.O. Box 2755,
Hyattsville, MD 20784,
P.O. Box 2755,
Hyattsville, MD 20784,
Case Number: AW-02-293
United States Moorish-American Nation, Inc.,
Judge: Alexander Williams
1612 K Street NW, Suite 1200,
Washington DC 20006,
District of Columbia non-profit corporation,
ANITA E. BELLE,
P.O. Box 3983,
Southfield, MI 48037,
Plaintiffs Pro Se, v.The United States of America, the United Kingdom,
the Nation of Germany, the Nation of Portugal, The Nation of Spain, the
Nation of Italy, the Nation of France, the Holy See, the Nation of
Denmark, King JUAN CARLOS I of Spain as beneficiary of the Estate of Isabel
I and Ferdinand I, ELIZABETH II of the United Kingdom, The Crown of
London, the Nation of the Netherlands, the Nation of Belgium, Mother
Supreme [Masonic] Council of the World, the U.S. Dept. of Justice, The
Sovereign Military Order of Malta, The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, The
International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, GEORGE
W. BUSH, Russell Trust (a.k.a. Yale University Order of Skull and Bones,
Brotherhood of Death, or [Illuminati] Chapter 322), ROBERT GALLO,
Litton Industries (now d.b.a. Northrop Grumman Corporation), The World
Health Organization, and Unknown Other Defendants, Defendants.
Class-Action Complaint for Damages, Fees, Costs, Declaratory,
Injunctive and Other Relief, & Jury Trial.
The Plaintiffs, Sultan DAVID ROSSER-EL, EDNA GORHAM-BEY, the United
States Moorish-American Nation, Inc., a District of Columbia non-profit
corporation, and ANITA E. BELLE hereby sue the following Defendants for
federal tort claims inflicted by violation of Maryland state laws
and international treaties that include, but are not limited to,
negligence, negligence per se, conspiracy, racketeering, conspiracy to
interfere with civil rights, other intentional torts, and obstruction of
1.It is alleged that Plaintiff Sultan DAVID ROSSER-EL is a resident of
the State of Maryland from Prince Georges County.
2.It is alleged that Plaintiff EDNA GORHAM-BEY is a resident of the
State of Maryland from Prince Georges County.
3.It is alleged that the United States Moorish-American Nation, Inc. is
a non-profit corporation incorporated in the District of Columbia in
1995. It is further alleged that Plaintiff Sultan DAVID ROSSER-EL is
president and EDNA GORHAM-BEY is chief executive officer of this
4.It is alleged that Plaintiff ANITA E. BELLE is a resident of the
State of Michigan and lives in Wayne County. Of note is that the Plaintiff
maintains a post office box in Oakland County, Michigan.
5.Plaintiffs allege that Defendant the United States of America is the
6.Plaintiffs allege that Defendant the United Kingdom is the government
of that nation that is also known as Britain, Great Britain, or
7.Plaintiffs allege that Defendant the Nation of Germany is the
government of Germany.
8.Plaintiffs allege that Defendant the Nation of Portugal is the
government of Portugal.
9.Plaintiffs allege that Defendant the Nation of Spain is the
government of Spain.
10.Plaintiffs allege that Defendant the Nation of France is the
government of France.
11.Plaintiffs allege that Defendant the Nation of Italy is the
government of Italy.
12.Plaintiffs allege that Defendant the Holy See is the city-state
government of the Vatican.
13.Plaintiffs allege that Defendant the U.S. Dept. of Justice is an
agency of the U.S. federal government.
14.Plaintiffs allege that Defendant King JUAN CARLOS I is the monarch
of Spain and the beneficiary/direct lineal descendant of Defendant
Estate of ISABEL I the Catholic and FERDINAND I the Catholic of Spain.
15.Plaintiffs allege that ELIZABETH II of the United Kingdom is the
monarch of Britain.
16.Plaintiffs allege that the Crown of London is a financial city-state
located near the United Kingdom.
17.Plaintiffs allege that the Nation of the Netherlands, also known as
Holland, is the government of the Netherlands.
18.Plaintiffs allege that the Nation of Denmark is the government of
19.Plaintiffs allege that the Nation of Belgium is the government of
20.Plaintiffs allege that Defendant the Mother Supreme [Masonic]
Council of the World is a Masonic lodge with members throughout the United
States of America, including in the judiciary and Congress.
21.Plaintiffs allege that the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is an
organization in the United States affiliated with the Catholic Church
and King JUAN CARLOS I of Spain.
22.Plaintiffs allege that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is a
private corporation located in the United States.
23.Plaintiffs allege that the International Monetary Fund is an agency
of the United Nations headquartered in Washington, DC.
24.Plaintiffs allege that the World Bank is an agency of the United
Nations headquartered in Washington, DC.
25.Plaintiffs allege that GEORGE H.W. BUSH is a resident of the State
of Texas in the United States. Plaintiffs also allege that he was a
member of the United States armed forces, a member/Director of the United
States Central Intelligence Agency, a member of the U.S. Congress, a
Vice President of the United States, and a President of the United States.
He is being sued in both his personal and official capacities.
26.Plaintiffs allege that GEORGE W. BUSH is currently a resident of
Washington, the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs allege that he is the
President of the United States, the former Governor of the State of Texas,
the son of former president and co-Defendant GEORGE H.W. BUSH, and a
member of the Russell Trust. He is being sued in both his personal and
27.Plaintiffs allege that Defendant the Russell Trust is located at
Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut.
28.Plaintiffs allege that Defendant ROBERT GALLO is a resident of the
State of Maryland in the United States.
29.Plaintiffs allege that Litton Industries, now doing business as
Northrop Grumman Corporation, has its principal business offices in Los
30.Plaintiffs allege that the World Health Organization is an agency of
the United Nations. Plaintiffs allege that this agency is headquartered
in Geneva, Switzerland.
31.Plaintiffs allege that when Islam proselytized Africa after 640
A.D., the Berber residents of the area of Africa that was later known as
Morocco converted to Islam. Being only nine (9)
miles away from Spain at the narrowest passage of the Straits of
Gibraltar, Plaintiffs allege that the Muslim Moors invaded that land which
was later known as Spain and Portugal in 711 A.D. Plaintiffs allege that
the Moors invasion of Spain was not a holy war over religion but was
rather in retaliation of Spanish King Rodericks kidnapping and rape of a
Moorish counts daughter. Plaintiffs allege that this war led to the
Crusades that began later around 1099 A.D.32. Plaintiffs allege that the
Moors were distinguishable from the indigenous Visigoth Spaniards and
Portuguese due to the Moors appearance. Plaintiffs therefore allege that
the Moors appearance, also called race, has been or is presently
described as black due to many of the Moors descending from the Berbers of
33.Plaintiffs allege that the indigenous Visigoth Spaniards and
Portugese, who worshipped a religion known as Catholicism, had an appearance
that has been or is presently described as white. Plaintiffs further
allege that the Visigoth Spaniards and Portuguese are related by blood to
the Germans, also known as Aryans.
34.Plaintiffs allege that as the Muslim Moors conquered southern
Europe, because the soldiers were males, and because the Moorish soldiers
occupied the conquered lands, the Moorish soldiers married wives of the
indigenous European population. Upon reproduction, the result of these
biracial marriages produced a darkening of the southern European
population that persists to this present day. Plaintiffs therefore allege that
the present day European allies continuing war against the Moors and
Sephardim is based upon race rather than religion because the Europeans
resented the corruption of their blood or genetic pool with the more
dominant Moorish genes.
35.Plaintiffs allege that the African slave trade began in 1441 as
Portugals capture and selling of Berber prisoners of war as slaves.
Plaintiffs therefore allege that these were prisoners of the war between Spain
and the Muslims Moors. Plaintiffs allege that due to this hostility
towards the Moors and Sephardim, the Portuguese/Brazilians were
responsible for enslaving over 4 million African prisoners of war between
1450-1900. Plaintiffs further allege that the 4 million Africans who survived
the treacherous Middle Passage voyage to be sold in Brazil were only
one-third of the original number of captives.
36.Plaintiffs further allege that the African slave trade was
sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church through its Council of Cardinals in
1457. Plaintiffs allege that the pretext for enslavement of Africans was
conversion of the Africans to Christianity. However, Plaintiffs allege
that an actual motive for enslavement of Africans was in retaliation of
the Muslim Moors occupation of southern Europe, including Rome, near or
in the capitol of the Catholic Church.
37.Plaintiffs allege that a continuing war ensued for 780 years between
the Moors and the indigenous Visigoths of Spain-Portugal, that war
culminating in the Moors surrender treaty signed by Ferdinand of Aragon and
Isabel of Castille in 1492.
38.Plaintiffs allege that in or around 1499, Ferdinand of Aragon,
Isabel of Castille, and Roman Catholic Cardinal Ximenez Cisneros conspired
to breach the treaty and re-declare the race war against the Moors.
Plaintiffs allege that the acts of war perpetrated by the Visigoth
Spaniards include, but are not limited to, burning Moorish libraries; expulsion
of the Moors and Sephardim Jews from Spain and Portugal; the theft of
property belonging to the Moors and the Sephardim; murdering 50,000
Moors and numerous Sephardim during the Inquisition
and afterwards; and selling Moorish children into slavery. It is
alleged that Pope John Paul II recently apologized for the Inquisition.
Therefore, Plaintiffs allege that reparations are due from the Vatican for
the Moors and Sephardim.
39.Plaintiffs allege that the Moorish children sold into slavery were
prisoners of war.
40.Plaintiffs allege that allies of the Spanish monarchy purchased
these child slaves. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant nations
Portugal, Denmark, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, United Kingdom,
and the United States denied the child slaves knowledge of their Moorish
heritage and language and forbid their being taught to read in order to
prevent the Moorish children from independently re-discover their
heritage. Plaintiffs allege that European royalty, the Holy See, and
presently unknown private interests in the afore-named Defendant nations
financially benefited from the slavery of these secret prisoners of war. It
is alleged that approximately 11,328,000 African prisoners of war
reached the auction blocks for sale as slaves were sold. It is also alleged
that at least another 22 million prisoners of war were captured but
perished before reaching the auction blocks. Plaintiffs therefore allege
that although Moorish children in Spain and Portugal were the first
prisoners of war to be enslaved, the Sephardim and other prisoners of war
were captured all over the African continent. Of the alleged 33,000,000
captives, it is alleged that:
a. 24% or 7,920,000 from the area later known as Nigeria.
b. 24% or 7,920,000 from the area later known as Angola.
c. 16% or 5,280,000 from the area later known as Ghana.
d. 13% or 4,290,000 from the area later known as Senegal/Gambia.
e. 11% or 3,636,000 from the area later known as Guinea-Bissau.
f. 6% or 1,980,000 from the area later known as Sierra Leone.
g. 6% or another 1,980,000 from other areas in Africa.
41.Plaintiffs allege that in breaking the treaty between Spain and the
Moors, and in retaliation for the Moors occupation of southern Europe,
the Spaniards-Portuguese declared war against Africa. As a result,
Defendant nations Spain and Portugal account for capturing 57.5% of the 11
million-plus prisoners of war. Accordingly, Plaintiffs allege that
between 1450-1900, Spain-Portugal and their Euro-U.S. allies captured the
following numbers of African prisoners of war and auctioned them for
sale as slaves in the following locations:
a. 4,000,000 or 35% of the total in Brazil, a colony of Portugal,
b. 2,500,000 or 22.1% of the total throughout the Spanish Empire,
c. 2,000,000 or 17.1% of the total in the British West Indies,
d. 1,600,000 or 14.1% of the total in the French West Indies,
e. 500,000 or 4.4% of the total in British North America and the United
f. 500,000 or 4.4% of the total in the Dutch West Indies,
g. 28,000 or 0.2% of the total in the Danish West Indies,
h. 200,000 or 1.8% of the total in other parts of Europe and slands.
42.Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant ally nations have
participated in a conspiracy with Defendant Spain and Defendant Estate of
Isabel and Ferdinand, such estate being alleged to presently benefit
Defendant King JUAN CARLOS I of Spain. Plaintiffs allege that this
conspiracy denies or fraudulently misrepresents to the prisoners of war the
existence of the re-declared race war between Spain-Portugal and the Moors
43.Plaintiffs allege that during their captivity as prisoners of the
ongoing race war between Spain and the Moors and Sephardim, war crimes
were suffered that include, but are not limited to the following:
a. In retaliation for southern Europes corruption of blood with the
Moors, so many enslaved African prisoners of war were raped that in the
United States alone, at least 80% of the present African-American
population have been corrupted with white blood. Of note is that many of those
raped and forced/bred to bear children were children themselves, thus
beginning the inter-generational cycle of teenage/pre-marital
c. Lynchings and murder.
d. Destruction of families by separating children from their parents.
e. Destruction of marriages by separating spouses.
f. Beatings and other forms of torture.
g. Hard labor with no pay, dilapidated housing, no education, forcing
the prisoners of war to eat food that violated Muslim and Sephardic
dietary restrictions, forcing prisoners of war to work on the
Friday/Saturday Sabbath in violation of Muslim and Sephardic religious beliefs, and
other inhumane acts.
44.Plaintiffs allege that the war between Spain and the Moors was
racial rather than religious because the Spaniards, though professed
Catholics and Christians, knew or should have known that Christ resembled the
Africans. Nevertheless, during the era that the Spaniards expelled the
Moors from Spain, the Sephardic Jews were also expelled.
a. It is alleged that the Sephardic Jews migrated to Spain either after
the fall of Israel in 721 B.C., during Judahs escape from the
Babylonian captivity in 586 B.C., or when Judah was conquered and expelled from
the land by the Romans in 70 A.D.
b. It is alleged that the Sephardim are or were physically
distinguishable from the Ashkenazis. Plaintiffs allege that the Ashkenazis are
descended from the Khazars of southern Russia/the Caucasus Mountains area.
Plaintiffs allege that the Khazars converted to Judaism in 740 A.D. but
are not lineally descended from the Hebrew Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob like the Sephardim are. Due to their descent from the Caucasus
Mountains area, Plaintiffs allege that the Ashkenazis appear to be what
is presently described as white. Plaintiffs further allege that the
Ashkenazis migrated to northern Europe after the fall of the Khazarian
c. Legend or fact alleges that when the Moors seized Spain in 711 A.D.
during the Muslim conquest, the Sephardim rendered military assistance
to the Moors, thus participating in the Moors victory over the Spanish
Visigoths. It is therefore alleged that in 1492, when the indigenous
Spanish Visigoths re-claimed their land, the Sephardim were ousted from
Spain in retaliation for their assistance to the Moors in 711 A.D.
d. It is alleged that the Sephardim Jews who migrated to Spain bore
African physical characteristics but who can now be distinguished from
other Africans by specific genetic tests.
i. Plaintiff ANITA E. BELLE hereby alleges that she would test positive
on genetic tests, such as Mediterranean glucose 6 phosphate
dehydrogenase (Mediterranean G6PD). Furthermore, this Plaintiff alleges that such
genetic test relates 25% of
the male and as many as 33% of the female African-Americans to 67% of
the Sephardic Jews.
ii. Moreover, Plaintiff ANITA E. BELLE alleges that the Sephardic Jews
can trace their descent to the progenitors of the nation of Israel,
namely the Hebrew Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Plaintiff contends
that the genetics of this descent can be proven by comparing the
uncloned DNA of the Sephardic Jews to the mummy of Jacob that rests in
Hebron, the West Bank of Israel/Palestine.
e. As evidence of the Spaniards and other Europeans having knowledge of
the true and original race of Christ, Plaintiffs allege that the most
ancient and most revered artwork in the possession of Catholic churches
throughout Europe depict St. Peter and the Virgin Mary and Holy Child
with African physical characteristics. However, in the 1400s, as a
result of the alliance between European families and in retaliation against
the Sephardims alleged collusion in the Moors conquest of Spain and
Portugal, Plaintiffs allege that the Catholics changed the visage of the
Madonna and Child and chosen people to Aryan.
f. After expulsion from Spain and Portugal, the Sephardim migrated to
other parts of Europe or back to Africa, with many Sephardim settlements
along the west coast of Africa.
45.Plaintiffs allege that Defendant the United States of America
participated in the conspiracy to keep secret from the Moorish child slaves
the knowledge of their prisoner of war status so as to conceal breach of
two treaties: The treaty between Spain and the Moors in 1491 and the
treaty the United States entered into with Morocco in 1786.
a. Plaintiffs allege that Paragraph 3 of the United States-Morocco
Treaty of Peace and Friendship states that if the parties be at war with
any nation, take a prize belonging to that nation, and find on board
subjects or effects belonging to either of the parties, that the subjects
would be set at liberty and the effects returned to the owners.
b. Plaintiffs allege that by denying the Moorish child slaves knowledge
of their heritage, the United States wrongfully retained ownership of
Moorish subjects who should have been set at liberty, according to the
c. Alternatively, it is alleged that in Paragraph 12 of the United
States-Morocco Treaty of Peace and Friendship that if any ship of war
belonging to the United States came into a Moroccan port, it should not be
examined on any pretense whatsoever, even though the ship may have
fugitive slaves on board, and the fugitive slaves may not be compelled to
return to shore. Plaintiffs argue that the United States treaty with
Morocco in 1786 was important because Morocco, a country along the
African-Atlantic Ocean coast, served as a strategic port during the United
States maritime importation of slaves from Africa. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
argue that because the U.S.-Morocco treaty permitted only ships of war
to port in Morocco without disruption of the fugitive slave cargo,
hence, the United States was forced to assert that the ships which
transported slaves from Africa to the United States were ships of war rather
than commercial vessels. Plaintiffs therefore contend that the United
States ships of war that participated in the African slave trade did so as
allies of the European nations in the Europeans ongoing war of
retaliation against the Moors and Sephardim.
d. Plaintiffs allege that Paragraph 16 of the United States-Morocco
Treaty of Peace and Friendship require that in any war between the
contracting parties, that the prisoners not be made slaves. Plaintiffs
therefore allege that said treaty serves as historical evidence that during
the time of 1786, it was common practice to enslave prisoners of war.
e. Plaintiffs allege that the entire treaty with Morocco was important
for maritime reasons because the United States had just fought the War
of Independence with Britain/United Kingdom. Plaintiffs allege that
because many slave ports on the coast of west Africa were under British
control, Morocco was utilized as a port for U.S. vessels, particularly
war vessels, to ward off any continuing hostilities that may erupt from
the British. Indeed, it is alleged that such hostilities erupted again
between Britain and the United States in the War of 1812. Indeed,
Plaintiffs allege that in 1772, Britain had begun abolishing slavery.
Plaintiffs allege that Britains abolition of the slave trade precipitated the
United States Declaration of Independence in 1776.
f. Conversely, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant the United States
treaty with Morocco employed ships of war to import slaves because Britain
outlawed the importation of slaves in 1807.
g. In the alternative, it is alleged that Defendants withheld,
concealed, fraudulently misrepresented, and denied the existence of the secret
ongoing race war between the Spanish and the Moors and Sephardim to
non-Moorish African prisoners of war enslaved due to the Africans real or
perceived alliance with the Moors.
46.Plaintiffs allege that the royalty of every European country is
related by blood or marriage. Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges that the
invasion and colonization of Africa by various
European countries was conducted in alliance with and in continuation
of the broken treaty and ongoing retaliatory race war between Isabella
and Ferdinand of Spain and the Moors. Thus, Plaintiffs allege that the
enslavement of Africans was the result of enslaving prisoners of the
ongoing war declared by the breach of the treaty between Spain and the
Moors. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that the colonization of Africa was
more motivated by the European royal families desire to avenge the Moors
conquest of Spain than the desire to spread Christianity.
47.Plaintiffs further allege that at least 17 out of 43 United States
presidents, such as Defendant GEORGE W. BUSH, the current U.S.
president, and his father, former president Defendant GEORGE H.W. BUSH, are
related by blood to many European royals. In addition, it is alleged that
many United States congressmen, senators, and judges are related to
Defendant GEORGE W. BUSH, and are therefore related by blood to many
European royals. It is further alleged that various Masonic and Catholic
organizations such as the Knights of Malta in the United States, of which
many politicians and judges are members, have taken vows to continue
protecting the descendants of European royalty under the pretext that
protection of these royals likewise supports Christianity. Specifically,
the descendants of the European royals, including Bush family members,
claim to be Merovingian, i.e., blood relatives of Jesus and the Virgin
Mary, or are followers of a version of John Dees British-Israeli
(Ashkenazi) Identity. Plaintiffs allege that due to Dees myth of the
British-Israeli (Ashkenazi) Identity, British and U.S. slavers made particular
effort to enslave Sephardic prisoners of war from Africa to suppress the
Sephardims use of their Hebraic language and culture in furtherance of
a conspiracy to steal the Sephardims identity.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that many or most law enforcement and
intelligence officers in the U.S., including in the federal government,
are members of Masonic and/or Catholic organizations that have taken
vows to protect Christian royalty by continuing Spains secret race war
against the Moors and Sephardim.
48.Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant Russell Trust, a.k.a. Yale
University Order of Skull and Bones, Brotherhood of Death, or
[Illuminati] Chapter 322 has Masonic affiliations. It is further alleged that
current U.S. president, Defendant GEORGE W. BUSH, and his father, former
U.S. president, Defendant GEORGE H.W. BUSH, are members of the Russell
Trust. It is also alleged that due to Defendant GEORGE H.W. BUSHs
affiliation with the United States Central Intelligence Agency, many
intelligence agents or officers are also affiliated with Yale University
and/or the Russell Trust.
49.Plaintiffs allege that the United Kingdom, also known as Britain or
England, outlawed the importation of slaves from the African continent
in 1807. However, Plaintiffs allege that the outlawed importation
imposed a fine upon ship captains for every slave on board, hence the
captains diminished their fines by casting overboard the captives into the
sea. Plaintiffs allege that Britain subsequently abolished slavery in
1833, but paid compensation to the slave owners and not the slaves.
50.Plaintiffs allege that via joint resolution of both houses of the
U.S. Congress, the United States declared a civil war against certain
rebel states on July 22-25, 1861. Plaintiffs allege that U.S. President
Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863.
However, Plaintiffs allege that former President Lincoln enacted this
proclamation pursuant to his war powers as commander-in-chief of the
U.S. armed forces during the Civil
War. Plaintiff therefore alleges that former President Lincoln knew or
should have known that such proclamation of emancipation would no
longer be effective pertaining to the slaves unless a constitutional
amendment was passed that abolished slavery. Plaintiffs therefore argue that
in order to abolish slavery and end the Civil War, Defendant the United
States of America fraudulently misrepresented and/or manipulated the
congressional vote of the anti-slavery amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. Accordingly, Plaintiffs allege that the anti-slavery amendment was
not properly proposed in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
a. It is alleged that this amendment was proposed while the United
States was embroiled in a civil war. The U.S. Constitution provides that
each state elect two senators, and that two-thirds of the members of the
Senate and the House of Representatives must approve an amendment
before such is submitted to the state legislatures for ratification by a
three-fourths vote. It is alleged that the 36 states comprised the United
States during the Civil War when the purported 13thAmendment was
proposed. Plaintiffs further allege that during said time period, the Senate
consisted of 72 members and the House of Representatives consisted of
240 members. Plaintiffs allege that in 1864, when the 13th Amendment was
proposed to the Senate, 11 states were denied representation, meaning
that 22 senators were denied the right to vote on the amendment. As a
result, Plaintiffs allege that of the remaining 50 senators permitted to
vote on the amendment, passage by 38 Senators does not constitute
passage by a two-thirds majority of a 72-member Senate.
b. Similarly, it is alleged that of the 240 members of the House of
Representatives, the 58 congressmen from the 11 rebel states were denied
the right to vote on the proposed 13thAmendment. As a result, in January
of 1865, with only 182 congressmen seated,
Plaintiffs allege that a two-thirds majority of 119 votes for approval
of the amendment was reached artificially and illegally by the denial
of seats to the 58 congressmen.
c. Prior to 1890, Plaintiffs allege that neither the U.S. House of
Representatives or the Senate had proposed rules for establishing a quorum
of members who must be present for votes. Plaintiffs allege that the
Constitution is silent on the issue of quorums. However, the U.S. Supreme
Court upheld the congressional rule regarding quorums, allowing
Congress the competency to prescribe any method of ascertaining whether a
quorum has been reached. U.S. v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892). Conversely, it
is argued that prior to 1890, the history of practice in the U.S. House
and Senate was that states opposing a proposition simply refused to
vote. Hence, Plaintiffs allege that pertaining to the proposal stage of
the 13thAmendment to the U.S. Constitution, in the Senate on April 8,
1864, of 72 Senators, the voting was as follows:
i. 38 voted for the proposed amendment,
ii. 6 voted against,
iii. 22 Senators were absent due to the Civil War, and
iv. the remaining 6 Senators abstained from voting.
d. Plaintiff therefore argues that during the Civil War, if 50 of the
72 senators seated to vote constituted a quorum for the proposed
anti-slavery amendment, then the two-thirds majority needed for passage of the
proposal was achieved when greater than 33 senators voted for the
proposal. However, at the second proposal stage for the 13thamendment in the
House of Representatives on January 31, 1865, of 240 members,
Plaintiffs allege that the voting was as follows:
i. 119 voted for the proposed amendment,
ii. 56 voted against,
iii. 58 congressmen were absent due to the Civil War, and
iv. the remaining 7 abstained from voting.
e. Plaintiff alleges that even if a quorum vote was achieved with the
absence of the 58 congressmen from rebel states, the approval of a mere
119 of the remaining 182 seated congressmen failed to constitute the
necessary two-thirds majority. Plaintiffs allege that at least 122
members of the 182 seated members of the House of Representatives would have
needed to approve the proposed anti-slavery amendment in order for it
to be delivered to the state legislatures for ratification. Although 27
of the 36 states of the United States ratified the 13thAmendment
effective December 18, 1865, Plaintiff alleges that with only 119 votes in
approval of the proposed amendment, the 13thAmendment failed to meet the
Constitutionally required two-thirds majority of both houses, thereby
invalidating this amendment. Plaintiffs argue that prior to 1890, the
history of practice in the U.S. House and Senate was that states opposing
a proposition simply refused to vote. Plaintiffs therefore maintain
that by exercising an exception to the Houses usual practice, the
abstention votes were not counted towards the two-thirds majority needed for
passage of the proposed 13thAmendment, and thus the two-thirds majority
was unlawfully achieved.
f. Plaintiffs alleged that by misrepresenting that the 13thAmendment
was properly proposed for ratification, former President Andrew Johnson
was able to formally declare the end of the Civil War on April 2, 1866.
g. Moreover, it may be argued that the 13thAmendment which purports to
abolish slavery is misnumbered and the true 13thAmendment, pertaining
to a prohibition against accepting titles of nobility from foreign
powers, had been suppressed since approximately 1819. Plaintiffs allege that
Defendant the United States has used the pretext of the Library of
Congress being burned in 1814 by Defendant the United Kingdom during the
War of 1812 as an excuse for being unaware of this 13thamendment.
h. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant the United States fraudulent
misrepresentation of the abolition of slavery for 137 years is another act in
furtherance of a secret race war. In the alternative, it is alleged
that even if the 13thAmendment was properly proposed and ratified,
Plaintiffs allege that the end of slavery is illusory without reparations and
without the coinciding valid passage of the 14thAmendment. Otherwise,
Plaintiffs argue that without the afore-mentioned components with which
to implement freedom, the freed slaves and their descendants remained
in a status of de facto prisoners of war/lower-caste residents with no
rights which the white man is bound to respect. Dred Scott v. Sandford,
60 U.S. 393, 407 (1856).
i. Plaintiffs allege that during the Civil War, Defendant the United
States paid compensation to slave owners who emancipated slaves in
non-rebel states. Plaintiffs allege that 40 acres and an Army mule were
promised to freed slaves by General William T. Sherman in Special Field
Order ..15 on January 16, 1865 while Abraham Lincoln was president of the
United States. Plaintiffs allege that President Lincoln was assassinated
on April 15, 1865. With the exception of certain black Prince Hall
freemasons, Plaintiffs allege that in the fall of 1865, confiscated or
abandoned lands won by Union soldiers and
previously promised as reparations to freed slaves were returned to
Confederates by President Andrew Johnson, even though the Civil War did
not end until April 2, 1866.
j. Plaintiffs allege that President Johnson, a mason from Tennessee, a
state in the Confederacy, and fellow masons, many of who were in the
Confederacy and the subsequent Ku Klux Klan, conspired to assassinate
President Lincoln, a non-mason, and thus insert Johnson as
Commander-in-Chief over the Armed Forces.
i. Plaintiffs allege that but for Johnsons participation in the masons
conspiracy to assassinate Abraham Lincoln, African-Americans would have
received reparations of 40 acres and a mule.
ii. Plaintiffs allege that Johnsons acts of re-distributing confiscated
lands back to the Confederates is not a discretionary act covered by
presidential immunity because such was committed in furtherance of the
conspiracy to assassinate former president Abraham Lincoln, a conspiracy
in which Johnson participated prior to becoming president.
iii. Plaintiffs allege that over the past 137 years, masons in U.S.
governmental offices, including the judiciary, have continued to cover up
the Masonic conspiracy of the Lincoln assassination and its
relationship to reparations for African-Americans. Plaintiffs allege that this
cover up included Congress failure to impeach Andrew Johnson because the
deciding votes were cast by fellow masons who were members of Congress.
iv. Plaintiffs sue the Mother Supreme [Masonic] Council of the World
for the acts of its members who conspired to commit treason against the
United States by
assassinating a president and thereafter giving aid to enemies during a
war. Plaintiffs likewise sue the Masonic appendant organization,
Defendant RussellTrust, for its acts in furtherance of the Masonic
v. Plaintiffs sue the United States government for specific performance
of General Shermans Special Field Order ..15 that promised 40 acres to
each African-American. Plaintiffs allege that by Defendant the United
States participating in the Masonic conspiracy to thwart and delay
reparations to African-Americans for 137 years, the interest on the land
debt has increased due to birth rates. Accordingly, Plaintiffs allege that
had not Defendant the United States interfered with the Freedmens
Bureau after the Civil War, Defendants would have provided 40 acres to only
4,000,000 African-Americans. However, due to the Defendants complicity
in depriving African-Americans of these reparations for 137 years,
Plaintiffs demand that Defendant the United States be required to provide
40 acres to each of the estimated 33,000,000 African-Americans per the
2000 U.S. Census.
51.Plaintiffs allege that the 14thAmendment of the U.S. Constitution
was not properly proposed and ratified. This amendment purports to grant
citizenship to anyone born in the United States, regardless of race,
and to endow all citizens with equal protection under U.S. law.
a. Plaintiffs allege that on December 5, 1865, the two-thirds approval
of the U.S. Senate was artificially and fraudulently manipulated by
refusing to seat duly elected members of Congress until two-thirds of the
remaining could be relied upon to approve the proposed amendment. In
addition to the 22 senators representing the rebel Southern states during
the Civil War, Senator John P. Stockton of New Jersey, a vocal opponent
proposed amendment, was likewise refused his seat. As a result, only 49
of the total 72 senators were permitted to vote. Plaintiffs therefore
allege that a two-thirds majority of 49 senators was artificially
achieved by the vote of 33 favoring the proposed amendment, 11 opposed, and 5
b. Plaintiffs allege that the House of Representatives likewise engaged
in fraudulent manipulation of the votes cast in the amendments proposal
process so that an artificial two-thirds majority was attained. At the
time, the House was composed of 240 members, but only 182 were seated.
If a two-thirds majority consists of the seated members, thenthe
proposal would have need 122 votes for approval. However, Plaintiffs allege
that in the voting for the proposed 14thAmendment on December 5, 1865,
only 120 voted in favor of the proposed amendment and 32 refused to vote
or abstained. Plaintiffs allege that prior to 1890, the history of
practice in the U.S. House and Senate was that states opposing a
proposition simply refused to vote. Hence, Plaintiffs allege that by making an
exception in the Houses usual practice and disregarding rather than
adding the 32 abstention votes with the opposition votes, it was declared
that a two-thirds majority approval of the House was attained, and the
proposed amendment was delivered to the state legislatures for
c. Prior to the Reconstruction Acts of 1867, seven of the 11 rebel
states passed legislative resolutions that protested the politicking and
manipulating that corrupted the 14thAmendments proposal process. As a
result, Plaintiffs allege that ratification of the proposed amendment
during Reconstruction rendered the approval of 10 state legislatures as
invalid because these states were under military occupation. All seven of
whose legislatures passed resolutions condemning this amendments
proposal process, in addition to three of the remaining four other rebel
states, were placed under military occupation. Plaintiffs allege that
Congress enacted such Reconstruction Acts to prevent the duly elected
legislatures from opposing ratification of the 14thAmendment.
d. Moreover, the amendment which sought to make citizens of the
allegedly freed slaves did so unilaterally and without the self-determination
or consent of the governed. Plaintiffs therefore allege that Defendant
United States fraudulently misrepresented, concealed, and otherwise
withheld information from the allegedly freed slaves upon which the
governed may give informed consent to U.S. citizenship, specifically,
concealing that a motive for slavery was the United States alliance with Spain
to continue the secret race war between Spain and the Moors and
e. In the 133-plus years since the 14thAmendment was allegedly
ratified, the United States made no effort to correct its constitutional flaws
by re-proposing and re-ratifying the amendment. Hence, it may be argued
that the 14thAmendment and those statutes or court decisions which
relied upon the 14thAmendment are invalid.
52.Plaintiffs therefore allege that even if the 13thAmendment of the
U.S. Constitution regarding the prohibition of slavery was properly
proposed and ratified, due to the flaws that Plaintiffs allege are present
in the 14thAmendment, Plaintiffs allege that their citizenship to the
United States is illusory and unequal. Plaintiffs also allege that
Defendant United States fraudulent misrepresentation of the causes of the
slave war denied Plaintiffs the right of informed consent regarding
pledging their citizenship and allegiance to a nation that has and still is
alliance with European nations who have waged an ongoing race war
against people of similar racial background as the Plaintiffs.
53.Plaintiffs allege that in furtherance of the Defendants race war
against Africa as a result of the breach in the Spanish-Moor treaty of
1492, the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 continued this war by dividing
the African continent for European colonization.
a. Plaintiffs allege that in order to achieve the Berlin Conferences
division of Africa by 1914, the Africans did not voluntarily relinquish
ownership of their land to the Europeans. Rather, Plaintiffs allege that
the Europeans invasion into the African interior and use of weapons
violently forced the Africans to submit to European colonization. Hence,
Plaintiffs allege that the Europeans use of weapons against the Africans
in order to effect the Berlin Conferences negotiated division of Africa
was an act of war against the Africans.
b. Plaintiffs allege that 87% of the nations represented in the
1884-1885 Berlin Conference later composed the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO). Plaintiffs allege that the attendees of the 3 month-long
Berlin Conference were Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, France,
Germany, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain,
Sweden, Norway, Turkey, and the United States. Plaintiffs allege that the
present composition of NATO consists of Belgium, Denmark, France,
Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain,
Norway, Turkey, the United States, Canada, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, the
Czech Republic, and Poland.c. Plaintiffs also assert that the United
Kingdom, then known as Great Britain, deliberately conspired to attain
most of the African nations in which the Sephardim settled in order to
conceal the race of Sephardim and/or exterminate them in furtherance of
the British-Israeli (Ashkenazi) Identity myth.
54.Plaintiffs allege that by deliberately and fraudulently
misrepresenting the causes of the slave war, Defendant the United States denied the
Plaintiffs knowledge of their ancestral national identities.
a. Plaintiffs allege that by denying Plaintiffs knowledge of their
ancestral national identity, Defendant United States dehumanized Plaintiffs
by referring to Plaintiffs by an adjective that denotes Plaintiffs
race. Examples of this dehumanization includes the historic reference to
Plaintiffs as Negroes, coloreds, or blacks. Of note is that the term
negro is of Spanish origin, meaning black in English, which Plaintiff
alleges resulted from the Spaniards conspiracy to black-a-Moor.
b. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants referring to Plaintiffs ancestral
nationality as African-Americans is inaccurate because Africa is a
continent composed of approximately 50 nations. However, Plaintiffs allege
that the term African-American serves as an admission that the
enslaving of African prisoners of war was conducted without regard to
preserving the individual captives family genealogy or national legacy.
c. Plaintiffs allege that the enslaving of African prisoners of war was
a particularly brutal crime against humanity because the Defendants
place significant importance on preserving their own genealogies and
likewise preserve even animals genealogy of pedigree. d. Plaintiffs allege
that Defendant the United States fraudulently misrepresented the
Spanish-Moor conflict that caused the slave war in furtherance of a racist
conceal from the prisoners of war the knowledge that the Moors
conquered Spain-Portugal for over 700 years, thus refuting the racial
inferiority stereotype that the United States inflicted on the prisoners of war.
e. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant the United States fraudulently
misrepresented and conspired to conceal from Plaintiffs information
regarding the Spanish-Moor conflict in order to prevent the prisoners of war
from renouncing their alleged or illusory U.S. citizenship and forming
at least one independent nation. Plaintiffs allege that the founding of
at least one independent nation was not a threat to the United States
national security due to the precedent set by the founding of Liberia.
Plaintiffs allege that Liberia, a country on the West African coast, was
founded in 1822 by the American Colonization Society to voluntarily
relocate 12,000 freed slaves back in Africa.
55.Plaintiffs allege that choosing a national ancestry distinguishes
Plaintiffs from other so-called African-Americans in that Plaintiffs bear
a unique consciousness of self-esteem resulting from knowledge of the
continuing Spanish-Moorish race war. Plaintiffs further allege that they
have openly and notoriously made such assertions:
a. The Sultan, Plaintiff DAVID ROSSER-EL has asserted Moorish ancestry
in sworn testimony before the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond,
Virginia on June 21, 1993 before Judge Jose R. Davila.
b. Plaintiff EDNA GORHAM-BEY has asserted Moorish ancestry via serving
as a notarized incorporator of the United States Moorish-American
Nation, Inc. and authoring Who Were the Negroes Before Slavery?, published
by Moorish Publishing.
c. Plaintiff ANITA E. BELLE has asserted Sephardic ancestry by alleging
a family history of Mediterranean G6PD on the X-chromosome, authoring
For Such A Time As This: Revealing Mistaken Identities, and is seeking a
court-ordered paternity-progeny test to compare her DNA with the mummy
of the Hebrew Patriarch Jacob.
56.Plaintiffs allege that as residents of the United States since the
alleged passage of the 13thand 14thAmendments and until the present
time, African-Americans have been treated by Defendant the United States as
aliens and enemies of the state rather than citizens. Plaintiffs allege
that examples of this mistreatment include, but are not limited to, the
a. Plaintiffs allege that immediately after the Civil War, the Ku Klux
Klan was formed by masons in the Confederate Army. Plaintiffs allege
that Klan members inflicted terror upon African-Americans, particularly
African-Americans who were not members of the predominantly black Prince
Hall freemasons. Plaintiffs allege that these Klan members then eluded
justice for their crimes against African-Americans because many law
enforcement officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges also had
Masonic affiliations. Plaintiffs allege that the Masonic oath requires
masons to discriminate in favor of other masons. Plaintiffs further
allege that the Masonic oath is a blood oath, meaning that masons vow to
keep said oath upon pain of death. Plaintiffs therefore allege that
blood oaths, such as the Masonic oaths, supercede all other oaths and thus
compromise the oaths of office sworn by law enforcement officers,
attorneys, and judges with Masonic affiliations. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
allege that Klan members with Masonic affiliations have been permitted to
wage a campaign of terror against African-Americans with impunity from
prosecution by U.S. federal and state governments.
b. Plaintiffs allege that after the Civil War, African-Americans were
disenfranchised from voting.
c. Plaintiffs allege that after the Civil War, the Black Codes were
enacted to replace the Slave Codes. Plaintiffs allege that the Black Codes
were laws created by the legislatures of the states that formed the
Confederates. Plaintiffs allege that these laws, also called Jim Crow
laws, regulated the activities and conduct of the newly freed slaves.
Plaintiffs allege that the Black Codes prohibited inter-racial marriages,
imprisoned freedmen to hard labor if they could not prove self-employment
or year-long employment, forbade freedmen from owning or renting
farmland, forbade freedmen from serving on juries or testifying in court
against whites, required freedmen to live in racially segregated
communities, segregated toilet and other facilities via race, etc. Plaintiffs
allege that until the 1950s, the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court,
seated by masons, upheld the Black Codes as separate but equal, Plessy
v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
d. Plaintiffs allege that the racial profiling of African-Americans as
drug dealers is a stereotype deliberately engineered by masons in the
U.S. government who outlaw particular drugs then import these drugs into
i. Plaintiffs allege that in 1909, masons began the stereotype of
African-Americans as cocaine addicts who rape white women. Plaintiffs
further allege that masons in Congress used this stereotype to persuade the
1914 passage of the Harrison Act that outlawed cocaine and other
imported drugs. Plaintiffs allege that the sponsor of the Harrison Act was a
member of Defendant Russell Trust, a Masonic appendant organization.
ii. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants and unknown other co-Defendants
in organized crime conspired to make the imported drugs which were
prevalent in predominantly white communities when legal available in
predominantly African-American communities once such drugs were outlawed.
Plaintiffs allege that racial segregation in residential housing persists
to this day. Plaintiffs allege that racial disparity and discrimination
in education and job attainment persists to this day. Plaintiffs allege
that although the African-American middle class, many of whom are
Prince Hall masons, has increased dramatically, a significant income
disparity between African-Americans and their Euro-American counterparts
persists to this day.
iii. Plaintiffs allege that the practice of Defendants covertly
importing illegal drugs into segregated African-American neighborhoods
persists to this day, presently resulting in over 1,000,000 African-Americans
being incarcerated. Plaintiffs further allege that one-third (1/3) of
young African-American males are presently under the control of the
criminal justice system. iv. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspiracy
to entrap African-Americans into violating drug laws further works to
disenfranchise this population due to state laws that deny voting rights
to convicted felons, even after release from prison. v. Plaintiffs
allege that the deliberate importation of addictive drugs into segregated
African-American communities constitutes the war crime of genocide.
Plaintiffs thus allege that Defendants the United States of America, GEORGE
H.W. BUSH, GEORGE W. BUSH, and the Russell Trust are participants in
conspiracy. Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that the acts of Defendants
GEORGE H.W. BUSH and GEORGE W. BUSH should not be covered by
presidential immunity because such acts were committed in furtherance of a
conspiracy that began before either became president of the United States.
vi. Plaintiffs allege that even though Defendant the United States
Department of Justice is the only agency authorized to press federal
charges of genocide, Plaintiffs allege that this federal agency has failed to
do so due to its participation in an the ongoing genocidal conspiracy.
Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that in 1998, former U.S. President
Clinton declassified a Memorandum of Agreement between the Central
Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Department of Justice that permitted the
intelligence agency to not report all known or suspected drug activities to
the law enforcement divisions of the Dept. of Justice. Plaintiffs
allege that this Memorandum of Agreement, in effect between 1982-1995,
violated the spirit and/or letter of federal and Maryland anti-drug
trafficking laws. Plaintiffs allege that officials of the U.S. Department of
Justice knew or should have known how imported drugs ravaged
predominantly African-American inner cities from reports in the media, by local and
state law enforcement agencies, and by health department vital
statistics. Plaintiffs therefore allege that Defendant the U.S. Dept. of
Justices deliberate or negligent dereliction of duties in failing to charge
Defendants GEORGE H.W. BUSH, GEORGE W. BUSH, and others with genocide
was committed in furtherance of the genocidal conspiracy.
vii. Plaintiff ANITA E. BELLE alleges that masons in the judiciary and
in Defendant the U.S. Department of Justice have thwarted Plaintiffs
efforts to seek justice against the perpetrators of African-American
genocide. Plaintiff ANITA E. BELLE made an expedited Freedom of Information
(FOIA) for the criminal records of Defendants GEORGE H.W. BUSH and
GEORGE W. BUSH on December 1, 2000. When the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, a division of Defendant the U.S. Dept. of Justice, denied Plaintiffs
FOIA request, Plaintiff ANITA E. BELLE filed suit. (Belle v. FBI, U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, case number 1:00-cv-3097,
dismissed without prejudice and re-filed as Belle & Belle v. FBI et al,
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, case number
01-cv-73672.) Plaintiff ANITA E. BELLE alleges that despite naming
Masonic lodges among the list of Defendants, and despite at least three
motions that the judges disclose their Masonic affiliation and recuse
themselves, the judges ignored Plaintiffs motions, failed to disclose their
Masonic affiliation or other grounds of judicial bias, and dismissed
Plaintiffs complaint. Therefore, Plaintiffs allege that judges who are
masons, members of Defendant Knights of Malta, and members of similar
other organizations violate their oaths of judicial office and render
biased judgments in furtherance of the ongoing secret race war between the
Spanish and the Moors and Sephardim.
e. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have inflicted biological warfare
experiments against people of African descent both in the United States
and around the world.
i. Plaintiffs allege that an example of such biological experiments
conducted on African-Americans include the deliberate withholding of
readily-accessible, life-saving treatment from tertiary-stage syphilis
patients in Tuskegee, Alabama.
ii. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants conspired to introduce
anthrax, lupus, and other diseases through offices of the United States
Postal System with predominantly African-American employees, through
iii. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants the United States of America,
ROBERT GALLO, the World Health Organization (WHO), and Litton Industries
(now doing business as Northrop Grumman Corporation) conspired to
introduce the HIV virus into selected populations through vaccination
programs. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant the United States
funded Defendant ROBERT GALLO and unknown other Defendants to
biomedically engineer a retrovirus that targets immune systems. Thereafter,
Plaintiffs allege that this engineered retrovirus accidentally or
deliberately contaminated the smallpox vaccines that Defendant Litton Industries
manufactured on behalf of Defendant the World Health Organization.
Plaintiffs allege that as a result of Defendant World Health Organizations
smallpox eradication program in Africa and Haiti, millions vaccinated
against smallpox later developed Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
(AIDS). Plaintiffs therefore allege that Defendant World Health Organization
is liable for the plague of AIDS that has killed millions in Africa and
Haiti. Plaintiffs further allege that the introduction of this
engineered retrovirus into the African and Haitian populations was an act of
genocide committed in
furtherance of the ongoing secret race war between the Spanish and the
Moors and Sephardim.
iv. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant the United States Dept. of Justice
knew or should have known of Defendants ROBERT GALLO, Litton
Industries, and World Health Organizations conspiracy to commit the genocide of
people of African descent. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant the United
States Dept. of Justice is the exclusive federal agency charged with the
responsibility of prosecuting the crime of genocide. Plaintiffs allege
that Defendant the United States Dept. of Justice was negligently or
deliberately derelict in its duties to prosecute the afore-mentioned
co-Defendants with genocide. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant the United
States Dept. of Justices dereliction of duties was committed to cover up
and in furtherance of a Masonic/Catholic conspiracy. Plaintiffs further
allege that Defendant United States Dept. of Justices dereliction of
duties was committed in furtherance of Defendants ongoing secret race war
against the Moors and Sephardim.
f. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have treated Plaintiffs and other
African-Americans as aliens or enemies of the state rather than equal
citizens. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant the United States and unknown
other Defendants have engaged in counter-intelligence (COINTELPRO)
activities against African-Americans, including intimidation, infiltration,
assassination or attempted assassination, sabotage, and entrapment.
Plaintiffs allege that they have been the victims of COINTELPRO activities
waged against African-Americans under the pretext of law enforcement
and/or national security
purposes. Plaintiffs allege that the only national security purpose
achieved by counter-intelligence activities against African-Americans is
if such is committed in furtherance of the secret race war Defendants
are waging against African-Americans in alliance with Spains continuing
war against the Moors and Sephardim. Plaintiffs therefore allege that it
is the ongoing secret race war Defendants wage in alliance with Spain,
against the Moors and Sephardim, that unites Catholic organizations
such as the Knights of Malta and predominantly Protestant secret societies
such as the masons.
g. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants the Federal Reserve Bank of New
York, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank have bankrupted
the governments of the world, including the governments of Defendant
the United States and various African and Caribbean nations, with illegal
i. Plaintiffs allege that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is a
private corporation. Plaintiffs further allege that the Federal Reserve
Bank of New York, representative of the 12 regional Federal Reserve
Banks, has been allowed to loan fiat currency to the United States Treasury
Department in order for the federal agency to print paper money.
Plaintiffs allege that the Federal Reserve Act, proposed by a mason, is
unconstitutional in that it violates Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the
U.S. Constitution which authorizes Congress to coin money, regulate the
value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and
Measures. Plaintiffs argue that the Federal Reserve Act
unconstitutionally permits Congress to delegate the monetary stabilization of the U.S.
economy to a private corporation.
ii. Plaintiffs allege that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and its
member banks launder illegal drug profits.
iii. Given the illegalities of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a
principal financier of the International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank, Plaintiffs argue that the subsequent loans made by the latter
Defendant financial organizations are likewise illegal.
iv. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants the Federal Reserve Bank of New
York, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, in collusion
with other Defendants, sabotaged the economic and political security of
African and Caribbean nations, thereby forcing these nations to apply
for Defendants international loans. Thereafter, Plaintiffs allege that
these Defendants, in collusion with other Defendants through covert
activities, again deliberately sabotaged the economies and political
security of African and Caribbean nations, thereby causing these nations to
default on Defendants loans. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants collusion
of sabotage and socioeconomic destabilization was waged in order to
defeat the political independence the African and Caribbean nations had
gained from their former European colonizers. Plaintiffs allege that
these Defendants committed these acts of financial manipulation and
sabotage against the African and Caribbean nations in alliance with Spains
ongoing secret race war against the Moors and Sephardim.
v. In the alternative, Plaintiffs contend that loans made to African
and Caribbean nations should be forgiven as offset of Defendants
reparations to these nations
for invasion, pursuant to the Berlin Conference and other imperialistic
agreements that furthered Spains ongoing secret race war against the
Moors and Sephardim.h. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant the United States
continues to treat African-Americans as aliens and threats to national
security because Defendant knows or should know of the constitutional
flaws with the 13th and 14thAmendments. Plaintiffs further allege that
Defendant the United States continues to treat African-Americans as
aliens and threats to national security due to Defendants liability for the
Masonic conspiracy to assassinate former President Abraham Lincoln and
subsequent prevention of non-mason African-Americans from receiving
reparations. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant United States, an
ally of Defendant Nation of Spain via the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO), continues to treat African-Americans as threats to the
national security of Spain-Portugal due to the continuing secret race war
against the Moors and Sephardim.
i. In response to the alleged terrorist attacks against the United
States World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001, NATO members
have invoked Article 5. Plaintiffs allege that this article of the NATO
alliance means that an attack against one member of the alliance is
equivalent to an attack against all members, thereby obligating all NATO
members to militarily defend the nation under attack.
ii. Plaintiffs therefore allege that under the pretext of defending the
United States against terrorism, African-Americans are at risk of being
detained in concentration camps and exterminated in holocaust-fashion.
Plaintiffs allege that via executive order under war powers conferred
to the commander-in-chief,
Defendant GEORGE W. BUSH may suspend the U.S. Constitution, declare
marshal law, and establish himself as dictator. Plaintiffs argue that
Defendant GEORGE W. BUSH is particularly likely to declare himself dictator
due to the illegitimacy of his presidency because of the
unconstitutional manipulation of the U.S. Supreme Court and the rigging of the
popular votes in Florida, the state wherein the Defendants brother is
iii. Plaintiffs allege that African-Americans are at increased risk
that Defendants GEORGE W. BUSH and the United States will execute such a
conspiracy of genocide in order to defeat African-Americans entitlement
to reparations, and cover up the Masonic conspiracy to assassinate
former President Abraham Lincoln, cover up other means by which masons and
Catholic organizations have subverted the U.S. Constitution in
furtherance of the United States alliance with Spain to continue the ongoing
secret race war against the Moors and Sephardim.
Class Action Allegations and Demands:
1.There are three classes on behalf of which this action is being
a. The first class consists of people living as of the filing date of
this action who are of at least 1/8 sub-saharan African racial heritage,
whose ancestors resided in the United States and were allegedly freed
from slavery in 1865 but who have not received 40 acres from the United
States government. It is alleged that Plaintiffs DAVID ROSSER-EL, EDNA
GORHAM-BEY, and ANITA E. BELLE represent this class.
b. The second class consists of people living as of the filing date of
this action who are of at least 1/8 sub-saharan African racial heritage
regardless of residence. Plaintiffs allege that
the first class will be a subset of the second class, hence Plaintiffs
allege DAVID ROSSER-EL, EDNA GORHAM-BEY, and ANITA E. BELLE represent
this class. Plaintiffs further allege that the governments of African
nations, businesses, and non-profit organizations may be members of the
second class. Hence, Plaintiffs allege that Plaintiff the United States
Moorish-American Nation, Inc. also represents this class.
c. The third class consists of the estates of people of at least 1/8
sub-saharan African racial heritage, regardless of residence, who fell
victim to the Defendants alleged conspiracy to commit genocide on or
after May 11, 1987. Plaintiffs allege that this date was selected because
on this date, the Times newspaper of London, the United Kingdom,
published a front page article regarding the World Health Organizations
connection to the AIDS epidemic through the smallpox vaccination program.
Plaintiffs allege that the estates of genocide victims include, but are
not limited to, those whose death was caused by HIV, addiction to
imported drugs, as a result of exposure to bio-chemical weapons while working
for the United States Postal Service, etc. Plaintiffs hereby give
notice of intention of seeking a representative for this class.
2.Plaintiffs are entitled to maintain this action under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure (FRCP) 23(a) and (b) because:
a. With potential classes of millions of people, joinder is
impracticable pursuant to FRCP 23(a)(1).
b. Under FRCP 23(a)(2), questions of law and fact are common to the
c. As set forth in FRCP 23(a)(3) and (4), the claims of the Plaintiffs
are typical of the claims of the class, and the Plaintiffs fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class members.
d. Under FRCP 23(b)(1)(A), class action is appropriate because multiple
suits would create a risk of adjudications establishing inconsistent
and incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class.
e. Under FRCP 23(b)(1)(B), a class suit is appropriate because
individual actions would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the
interests of the other members not parties to the adjudications or
substantially impair their ability to protect their interests.
f. Under FRCP 23(b)(2), a class suit is appropriate because the
opposing party has acted on grounds generally applicable to a group, thereby
making injunctive or declaratory relief appropriate for the class.
3.For the above-referenced allegations, Plaintiff respectfully demand
a. Specific performance of U.S. General William T. Shermans Special
Field Order ..15 of January 16, 1865 for 40 acres and a mule to the
members of the first class. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant the United
States is liable to this class but may seek contribution from other
Defendants. Plaintiffs demand a more modern form of transportation or
agricultural tool to substitute for the mule. Plaintiffs demand equitable relief
in the form of contiguous land, complete with riparian rights and
coastal access, exclusive underground and above ground or air rights,
preferably in a Southern climate.
b. Compensatory, punitive, actual, special, and other monetary damages
to members of classes one, two, and three. Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants may be jointly and severally
liable for these monetary damages. Plaintiffs further demand that these
monetary damages be paid in U.S. Treasury certificates or other assets,
such as gold, rather than Federal Reserve notes. Moreover, Plaintiffs
demand that the class representatives be paid a more sizeable proportion
of the total damages due to undertaking the research, expense,
publicity, and COINTELPRO covert activities associated with the lawsuit.
c. Declaratory relief that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is
unconstitutional and restoration of U.S. currency/monetary policy into the
exclusive control of the Congress of the United States.
d. Distribution of the ill-gotten assets gained by the Federal Reserve
Banks as reparations to the above-listed classes.
e. Permanent injunction against executive orders that detain and
otherwise place African-Americans in concentration camps.
f. Permanent injunction staying the United States and others from
implementation of any plan which uses chemical, biological, or others means
of effecting the genocide or mass murder of any people, particularly
those of African descent.
g. Immediate release and restoration of the civil rights of African
prisoners of war and other non-masons, regardless of race, held in
captivity by the United States or one of its states. Such political prisoners
include, but are not limited to, former Black Panthers and others.
Plaintiffs contend that unless the United States judicial system requires
mandatory disclosure of secret Masonic affiliations, non-masons do not
receive fair trials, sentences, or legal advice loyal to the clients
best interest that is untainted by a Masonic conflict of interest.
Plaintiffs demand a court order to have Masonic organizations disclose their
membership rolls. Plaintiffs allege that Masonic appendant
organizations include, but are not limited to, the following: Shriners, Russell
Trust, Bnai Brith, the Fraternal Order of Police, Prince Hall Association,
the Order of the Eastern Star, Knights Templar, etc. Plaintiffs demand
the immediate release of non-masons meeting one or more of the
following criteria in which Plaintiffs allege that non-masons suffered
discrimination, judicial bias, and/or attorney conflict of interest:
i. The non-mason was represented by an attorney who is a member of a
Masonic organization, as was also opposing counsel, or law enforcement,
or prosecuting witnesses, or hostile witnesses.
ii. A judge with Masonic affiliations heard the case of a non-mason
when opposing counsel, or law enforcement, or prosecuting witnesses, or
hostile witnesses were also masons.
iii. A member of the jury with Masonic affiliations heard the case of a
non-mason when opposing counsel, or law enforcement, or prosecuting
witnesses, or hostile witnesses were also masons. h. Plaintiffs demand a
similar disclosure of affiliation with Catholic organizations such as
Knights of Malta, Knights of Columbus, Opus Dei, etc. Plaintiffs
similarly demand a court order to have these organizations disclose their
membership rolls.i. Declaratory relief that former President Andrew Johnson
committed treason by participating in the conspiracy to assassinate
former President Abraham Lincoln. j. Judicial termination of slavery by
declaring contracts or titles of ownership over persons as null, void,
unconscionable, or extinguished by laches or adverse possession, pending
or irrespective of re-proposal and re-ratification of a U.S.
Constitutional Amendment that truly eliminates slavery.
k. Given the defects of the 13thand 14thAmendments to the U.S.
Constitution, full citizenship to the African prisoners of war who reside in
the United States and desire its citizenship. Otherwise, Plaintiffs
demand that those who self-determine to not attain U.S. citizenship be
afforded the status of legal resident aliens, be permitted to choose a
nationality, rendered diplomatic and logistical cooperation in relocating to
their prospective homeland, and granted provisional permission to
re-enter the United States for any legitimate purpose.
l. Plaintiffs demand local, state, and federal tax abatement of all
m. Declaratory relief that Defendants have engaged in an ongoing secret
n. Permanent injunction against the Defendants engaging in any further
acts to perpetuate the race war, thereby peacefully resolving and
ceasing any further hostilities between the races.
o. Plaintiffs demand reasonable attorneys fees and costs for bringing
forth this litigation.
p. Plaintiffs demand a trial by a jury of their peers.WHEREFORE,
Plaintiffs request this honorable court grant the relief enumerated above and
whatsoever other relief the court deems just. Plaintiffs further give
notice of intentions of amending this complaint as circumstances warrant
and new information develops.