To The Honorable “World
Court of Justice” The Hague
85.
“We Thee Abused (American) “Negro
Race”… Appearance
Respectfully before his/her “World Honorable Presiding “Justices”,
Legally “State”, “Affirm” and “Declare” before the
“World Honorable Justice” and The Entire International Community”,
Pursuant to “Dred Scott” Vs. Sandford, 60 U.S.
393 (1857) (Plaintiffs) herein collectively now after
February 7th 2013 are not official legal
citizens at all of “The United States of America”
The 13th and 14th Amendment of Deep Dark Ages Defendant
“The United States of America” do not even exist at all after 1865-at the latest
1868
“Slavery servitude” continual onward precisely
145 years secretly later until February 7th 2013, “fully void”, “not valid” or
“not ever legally binding”
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution which
in the past was legally ratified on July 9th, 1868,
Pursuant to “Dred Scott” Vs. Sandford, 60 U.S.
393 (1857)
We Thee Abused (Negro) Race of America herein
now after February 7th 2013 in this present date of 2015-2099 are the Legal
official
Chattel
Property of Defendant “The United States of America” there after Deep Dark Ages
Defendant
“The United States of America” the direct
destruction of “Freedmen's
Bureau”,
We thee Continual Abused (Negro) race
abducted, and Kidnap from our very own Free Sovereign, thereby now Pursuant to
“Dred Scott” Vs. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) being “criminally” subject to a
(RICO) Pursuant to ” the Deep Dark ages Defendant “The United States of
America” herein “on rules of governing laws” pursuant to
“Racketeering Influenced and
Corruption Organization” (RICO) in this ongoing 2015-2099
Secretly “Slave Regime” (RICO)
fully furtherance’s committed continual on with “White Only” prosperity of
hostile nature of 10,000 and 500 % physically in “Black Codes Laws”,” Jim Crow
Laws”,
While “Slavery Servitude” furtherance’s
“Racketeering Influenced and Corruption Organization” (RICO) secretly “Slave
Regime” enforced until February 7th 2013 under such “Sovereign
Immunity” prevents a sovereign state or person from being subjected to suit without
its consent.
The doctrine of sovereign
immunity stands for the principle that a nation is immune from suit in the courts
of another country. It was first recognized by U.S. courts in the case of The
Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 3 L. Ed. 287 (1812).
At first, courts espoused a theory that provided
absolute immunity from the jurisdiction of a U.S. court for any act by a foreign
state. But beginning in the early 1900s, courts relied on the political branches
of government to define the breadth and limits of sovereign immunity.
In 1952, the U.S.
State Department reacted to an increasing
number of commercial transactions between the United States and foreign nations
by recognizing foreign immunity only in noncommercial or public acts, and not
in commercial or private acts.
However, it was easily
influenced by foreign diplomats who requested absolute sovereign immunity, and the
application of sovereign immunity became inconsistent, uncertain, and often unfair.
Complaints about inconsistencies led
to the passage of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (28 U.S.C.A. §§
1 note, 1330, 1332, 1391, 1441, 1602–1611).
By that act, Congress codified the theory of sovereign
immunity, listing exceptions for certain types of acts such as commercial acts,
and granted the exclusive power to decide sovereign immunity issues to the courts,
rather than to the State Department.
Indian tribes have
been granted sovereign immunity status by the United States, and therefore they
generally cannot be sued without the consent of either Congress or the tribe.
This immunity is
justified by two considerations: First, historically, with more limited resources
and tax bases than other governments, Indian tribes generally are more vulnerable
in lawsuits than are other governments.
Second, granting
sovereign nation status to tribes is in keeping with the federal policy of self-determination
for Indians.
Indian tribes are immune from suit whether
they are acting in a governmental or a proprietary capacity, and immunity is not
limited to acts conducted within a reservation.
However, individual
members of a tribe do not receive immunity for their acts; only the tribe itself
is immune as a sovereign nation.
Governmental
Tort Immunity
Sovereign immunity
may also apply to federal, state, and local governments within the United States,
protecting these governments from being sued without their consent.
The idea behind domestic sovereign immunity—also
called governmental tort immunity—is
to prevent money judgments against the government, as such judgments would have
to be paid with taxpayers' dollars.
As an example, a private citizen who is injured
by another private citizen who runs a red light generally may sue the other driver
for Negligence.
But under a strict
sovereign immunity doctrine, a private citizen who is injured by a city employee
driving a city bus has no Cause of Action against the city unless the city, by ordinance,
specifically allows such a suit.
Governmental tort
immunity is codified at the federal level by the “Federal Tort Claims Act” (28 U.S.C.A.
§ 1291 [1946]), and most states and local governments have similar statutes.
Courts and legislatures
in many states have greatly restricted, and in some cases have abolished, the doctrine
of governmental tort immunity.
Providing Appearance
Respectfully before his/her “World Honorable Presiding
“Justices”,
Completely provides Venue, is just and proper
before “World Court of Justice”, in that
We thee Continual Abused (Negro) race
abducted, and Kidnap from our very own Free Sovereign, thereby now
Pursuant to “Dred Scott” Vs. Sandford, 60 U.S.
393 (1857)
Being “criminally” subject to a now having “Ever”
no legal standing before our “Slave Master” and “Conquers” 1619-2099 in their custom “White Only Pure Race ” designed
Government Non-reformed “Slave Regime” of the Deep Dark ages Defendant (United States
of America) which has legally existed in varying since 1619 in “Black Codes
Laws, Jim Crow Laws, The Vagrancy Act of 1865
To include
but not limited to “Historically Until February 7, 2013,”
The state of Mississippi had never submitted
the required documentation to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment, meaning it never
officially had abolished slavery.
The
amendment was adopted in December 1865 after the necessary three-fourths of the
then 36 states voted in favor of ratification.
“Lynch Town Mississippi
USDA”, however, was a holdout; at the time state lawmakers were upset that they
had not been compensated for the value of freed slaves since.
No comments:
Post a Comment