Murukan Dominion

  I yahwoofkah ali el-bey       Assert My full Birthrights - Sovereignty and Substantive Rights and claim to;

 Locations

33.759650 \  -117.010350

near [775 conlon dr hemet 92545]

33.761170 \  -117.011240

near [865 brisbane st hemet 92545]

33.761589 \  -117.011192

near [hemet 92545]

Hereditaments - Being a Sundry Free Moor / Muur and a (Natural Being) pursuant to: Moabite /

Moorish Pedigree; The Free Moorish Zodiac Constitution; The Great Seal of the Moorish Nation

(Ab Antiquo); The Treaty of Peace and Friendship - 1787 / 1836; The Sundry Free Moors Act of

1790; The 1781 Organic United States Constitution; The Moorish Federal Financiers Act (Union

States Army: 1861 -1863); The 1854 Roman Catholic Magna Charta; the Knights of Columbus

Code; The Ku Klux Klan Oath; The United Nations Charter, Article 55(c); The Rights of

Indigenous People: Part I, Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; Part II, Article 6; The United States Supreme Court -

‘Acts of State’; The foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 28 USC 1601; et Sequa., The Convention on

International Road Traffic -Day 19, September 1949, The World Court Decision, The Hague,

Netherlands - Day 21, January 1958 A.D = 1378 M.C. In reference to the Rights of the Natural

People and Substantive Rights, etc., the following are pertinent Supreme Court Decisions, (Stare

Decisis) to wit:

1. The Right to Travel; The Right to Mode of Conveyance; The Right to Locomotion are all

Absolute Rights, and the Police can not make void the exercise of Rights. State v. Armstead, 60 s.

778, 779, and 781:

2. The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege,

but a common and Fundamental Right of which the public and Natural Beings cannot be deprived.

Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago 337 Illinois 200, 169 NE 22, ALR, Ligare v. Chicago 139 ILL.

46, 28 HE 934, Boone v. Clark 214 SW 607, 25 AM jur (1st), Highways, sec. 163:

3. The Right to Park or Travel is part of the Liberty of which the Natural Person, citizen cannot

be deprived without “due process of law” under the 5th Amendment of the United States

Constitution. Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116, 125:

4. The Right of a citizen to Travel upon the public highways and to transport one’s property

thereon, either by carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege, which a City may prohibit or

permit at will, but a common Right, which he / she has under the Right to Life, Liberty, and the

Pursuit of Happiness. Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579:

5. State Police Power extends only to immediate threats to public safety, health, welfare, etc.,

Michigan v. Duke 266 US, 476 Led. At 449: which driving and speeding are not. California v.

Farley Ced. Rpt. 89, 20 CA3rd 1032 (1971):

6. The state is prohibited from violating Substantive Rights. Owens v. City, 445 US 662 (1980);

and it can not do by one power (eg. Police Power) that which is, for example, prohibited expressly to

any other such power (eg. Taxation / Eminent Domain) as a matter of Law. US and UT v. Daniels,

22 p 159, nor indirectly that which is prohibited to it directly. Fairbanks v. US 181, US 283, 294,

300:

7. Traveling in an automobile on the public roads was not a threat to the public safety or health

and constituted no hazard to the public, and such a traveler owed no other duty to the public (eg. the

State); he / she and his / her auto, having equal right to and on the roadways / highways as horses

and wagons, etc.; this same right is still Substantive Rule, in that speeding, running stop signs,

traveling without license plates, or registration, are not threats to the public safety, and thus, are not

arrestable offenses. Christy v. Elliot, 216 I 131, 74 HE 1035, LRA NS 1905—1910: California v,

Farley 98 CED Rpt. 89, 20 CA 3d 1032 (1971).

8. Under the United States Republic’s Constitutional system of Government and upon the

individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the State does not claim to control one’s conduct to

others, leaving one the sole judge as to all that affects oneself. Mugler v. Kansas 1213 US 623,659—60:

9. Where Rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule - making or

legislation, which would abrogate them. Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 125:

10. The claim and exercise of Constitutional Rights cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v.

Kansas 230 F 2nd 486, 489:

11. For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party (Corpus Delicti). There can be no

sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this Constitutional Right. Sherer v. Cullen 481 F.

945:

12. If any Tribunal (court) finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over a person and subject

matter, the case must be dismissed. Louisville v. Motley 211 US 149, 29S. CT 42. “The Accuser

Bears the Burden of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”.

13. “Lack of Federal Jurisdiction can not be waived or overcome by agreement of parties”.

Griffin v. Matthews, 310 F Supra 341, 342 (1969): and “Want of Jurisdiction may not be cured by

consent of parties”. Industrial Addition Association v. C.I,R., 323 US 310, 313.