Check back here regularly for the latest news and events in your area.
TODAY - Are “We the People” Hebrew Yisraelites
(African Americans) - Sovereigns or Slaves?
February 26, 2013
HalleluYAH! Giving all Praise to YHWH the Holy One of Yisrael…God of the Hebrews: the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Yacob!!!
Is it possible that in the year 2013 that the federal court of United States of America has not moved beyond the bigotry and intolerance of the mid-1800s? Let's examine some of the historical facts;
“Roger Brooke Taney was the fifth Chief Justice of the United States District Court of Missouri. He is most remembered for delivering the majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which ruled, among other things, that African Americans, having been considered inferior at the time the Constitution was drafted, were not part of the original community of citizens and could not be considered citizens of the United States. “ Source: Wikipedia
Chief Justice Taney went on to state in his landmark opinion; ... “The question is simply this: can a negro whose ancestors were imported into this country and sold as slaves become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen, one of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution?” ...
... “The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State in the sense in which the word "citizen" is used in the Constitution of the United States.” ...The words "people of the United States” and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the "sovereign people,” and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.”…
The ruling of the Dred Scott vs. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1856) was never repealed and as such stands as a legal precedence for any current or future case brought before the courts. Now let's examine the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution and determine what effect, if any, they have on the condition of, “negro(s) whose ancestors were imported into this country and sold as slaves... whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth”... have significantly changed today in 2012 -2013.
The 13th Amendment: officially ended
involuntary slavery and prohibited it for the future. Or did it?
The 14th Amendment: declared that former slaves were (a new second class of) citizens and required that states provide everyone equal protection under the law. How equal is equal?
On December 17, 2012, at approximately 1:45 pm, Noble Yahudah Ben YsraEL was witnessed by Janice M. Hammonds, Deputy Recorder #CLB2, recording Document # 00553 Deed Book 20285 Page 1386 in the St. Louis County Recorder of Deeds Office located at 41 South Central Ave Clayton, Missouri 63105-1799. This document confirmed his name correction and change of political status, with the full knowledge of his unalienable right to reclaim his heritage and birth right as a sovereign dual national of the United Nation of Yisrael and non-citizen American national of the united States of America. Proud to declare his newly gained status and awaiting his photo identification card from the United Nation of Yisrael, he carried a notarized Legal Notice and Demand affidavit in his vehicle as legal proof of his newly corrected name and political status.
On the morning of December 31st 2012, Noble Yahudah Ben YsraEL was traveling on Highway 370 near Elm Street, in St. Charles County, Missouri, when he was stopped by a State of Missouri Trooper. State Trooper Walter Luzenko Badge # DSN 1340 stated that Noble Yahudah Ben YsraEL was traveling in a vehicle that allegedly failed to display valid plates. Noble Yahudah Ben YsraEL when stopped and asked to present identification by the Missouri State Trooper, Walter Luzenko Badge # DSN 1340, he presented his Legal Notice and Demand identification to the Trooper which clearly states his name and political status. Noble Yahudah Ben Ysra'EL has yet to be charged with any crime and is being held as a political prisoner of the State of Missouri.
Noble Yahudah Ben Ysra'EL is being held under the name of Clarence A. Holmes, which Noble Yahudah has power of attorney for and is willing to work with local and federal authorities to clear up any matters, as the secured party creditor. However, instead of treating Noble Yahudah with respect and dignity he has been denied equal rights and protection of the Constitution and the subsequent laws enacted by Congress. He has declared his proper status on the record via unrebutted affidavits, Noble Yahudah has dual nationality and as such 28 USC§ 1343 states;
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:
(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States;
Two Motions of Removal to the Federal District Court of Eastern Missouri were filed based on federal question and diversity jurisdiction. The first case was racketeering: corrupt organization Civil Case# 4:13cv000130 SPM. Both where remanded back to the Missouri State Courts. Is the Federal District Court of Missouri poised to make history again?
Judge Rodney W. Sippel stated in his Memorandum and Order dated February 12th, 2013 to Civil Case# 4:13CV198, which was the second case on civil rights , that the “Defendant's grounds for removal are legally frivolous”. Is an Article III Section 2 judge saying the pursuit of one's constitutional rights as an individual of African descent or Hebrew Yisraelite national origin frivolous and why is that the case? Judge Sippel also stated in the Order “To demonstrate that removal is proper under § 1443(1), a defendant “must show that he relies upon a law providing for equal civil rights stated in terms of racial equality” Neal v. Wilson, 112 F.3d 351, 355 (8th Cir. 1997). “ [R]emoval is not warranted by as assertion that that a denial of rights of equality may take place and go uncorrected at trial. Removal is warranted only if it can be predicted by reference to a general application that the defendant will be denied or cannot enforce the specified federal rights in the state courts.” State of Georgia v. Rachel 384 U.S. 780, 800 (1966)”.
This line of reasoning brings up two questions. First, is the statement from Neal v. Wilson case limited to only racial equality or does it make reference to Public Law. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241known as the Civil Right Act of 1964, Sect. 201 (a) , which references...“color, race, religion or national origin”...? And what does racial equality have to do with national origin and the recognition of Noble Yahudah Ben YsraEL as a non-citizen American national due equal rights and protection of the laws based on his affidavit of name correction and political status, as a dual national of the united States of America, where he was born and the United Nation of Yisrael based on his declared nationality and heritage?
Which bring up the second question, how easy is it to predict by reference to a law of general application that the defendant will be denied or cannot enforce the specified federal rights in a state or federal court for that matter, if neither court will address Noble Yahudah Ben Ysra’EL’s by his birth right name or recognize his heritage, culture or national origin? No warrants, claims or court orders have been filed anywhere in the State of Missouri for the arrest and detention of Noble Yahudah Ben Yisra’EL. This is very EASY to PREDICT – No Justice for Noble Yahudah!!!
“To redress the deprivation under color of any State law, statue, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the united States or by any Act of Congress...” 28 USC § 1343 (a) (3)
This is a case about national origin (nationality) and not racial equality; therefore it must be heard in an Article III Section 2 court before an impartial judge or panel of judges, which answers the first question; however the second question is quite a bit more intriguing.
Could Judge Rodney W. Sippel's statement that “The Nation of Yisrael appears to be a fictional country...” be considered an anti-Shemitic (Semitic) remark. He went on to say “As grounds for removal, defendant states that he is a sovereign of the United Nation of Yisrael and therefore, he is not subject to the laws of Missouri or the United States.”
Is a partial truth the same as a LIE?
Multiple statements in Noble Yahudah Ben Ysra'EL's affidavit of fact stated that an Article III Section 2 court was the only jurisdiction that he is subject to outside of the Divine Constitution of the United Nation of Yisrael and therefore he as per his right as an individual operating under the political status of a dual national is under the jurisdiction of the Constitution of the united States of America. In the conclusion of the Neal v. Wilson, 112 F.3d 351, 355 (8th Cir. 1997) case, which Judge Sippel used as a precedent, it states “…Under § 1443(1), the vindication of the defendant's federal rights is left to the state courts except in the rare situations where it can be clearly predicted by reason of the operation of a pervasive and explicit state or federal law that those rights will inevitably be denied by the very act of bringing the defendant to trial in the state court.” If Noble Yahudah Ben Ysra’EL is brought before the Missouri State Court under his “slave name” is he inevitably denied his constitutional rights and/or being discriminated or segregated against on the grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin? I guess that part of the Neal v. Wilson case conclusion was somehow overlooked. Things that make you go hummmmm!!!!
With the various issues that Judge Sippel seems to have with using Noble Yahudah Ben Ysra'EL’s name (which he didn't refer to once in his Memorandum and Order dated 02/12/2013) and his nationality as a
non-slave American national or his heritage as a sovereign national of the United Nation of Yisrael, we decided to look into Judge Sippel's previous case history and found the following information to be quite interesting:
An April 15, 2010 article of the Daily Riverfronttimes.com, a Missouri news outlet, highlights his decision from the federal bench in support of the Traditional Knights of the KKK. The article states, “A federal judge in St. Louis issued an emergency order yesterday allowing the Ku Klux Klan to picnic at the Fort Davidson State Historic Site in Iron County this Saturday.” The permit was initially denied by state officials, however, “In a somewhat scathing ruling, Judge Rodney Sippel yesterday ruled that the Klan cannot be discriminated against even if its views are “repugnant”. The article goes on to state “Sippel, citing long-established legal precedent, said officials could not bar the group from a public place just because of the content of its speech or message. He said that even if everything the group says is incorrect, "They do have the right to say it."
Why are the Ku Klux Klan's constitutional rights of freedom of speech so important and compelling to warrant an emergency order and Noble Yahudah Ben Ysra'EL's right to his heritage, birth right, culture, name and nationality deemed frivolous? The particular article ends with this, “Oh, and some members would also be wearing robes and hoods, presumably to hide the shame of anyone seeing these fearsome bigots”... Let's not forget the initial question we asked at the beginning of this release. Is it possible that in the year 2013 that the federal court of United States of America has not moved beyond the bigotry and intolerance of the mid-1800s?
Upon even closer review, we found a few articles about Judge Sippel and some disclosure issues in reference to a case with Monsanto. On January 9, 2004 The Guardian, an UK media / news outlet, ran an article titled “Trial judge worked for firm that acted for Monsanto.” The article goes on to state “At the least, according to legal experts, Mr. Sippel should have declared the relationship between his former law firm and the seed company before the case started.” “The fact that he didn't disclose it is troubling,” Deborah Rhode, a professor of law at Stanford University, told the New York Times, “Courts are suppose to avoid the appearance of impropriety.”
Under the US judicial code of conduct, “a judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which: the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding." Other instances include when "the judge served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter." When requested by counsel in the case to recuse himself from the case Judge Sippel refused.
We the People, have concerns about the impartiality of Judge Rodney W. Sippel in reference to the Motion to Remove Noble Yahudah Ben Ysra'EL's case from St. Charles County to US District Court Eastern District of Missouri. Noble Yahudah Ben Ysra'EL has been arrested and held without formal charges in his birth right name, Noble Yahudah Ben Ysra'EL, since December 31, 2012; he was forcibly fingerprinted and booked against his permission and will; he is also being held on a $25,000 cash only bond; he was subsequently told by court and jail officials that they would keep him indefinitely unless he would give them his “slave name.” In order for a freeman operating as a secured party creditor and non-citizen American national to get a free and impartial hearing based on the Supreme Law of the Land; the Constitution, Noble Yahudah Ben Ysra'EL exercised his human and civil rights under 28 USC § 1343.
In an article published November 03, 1999 entitled “Busch-Whacked” tells the story of Gina Lynn, a 27-year old animal rights activist from Boulder Creek, Calif., who was arrested by FBI agents at her California home for ignoring a subpoena asking for her fingerprints and handwriting samples. The article states that “Lynn was subsequently hauled to St Louis and appeared before US District Judge Rodney Sippel on October 5 for a hearing on a contempt of court charge. …"You hold the keys as to when you may be released," Sippel told her. "You will not be released until then." Is this a pattern for Missouri State and Federal officials?
At this point it is doubtful that Noble Yahudah Ben Ysra'EL will be able to get a fair and impartial hearing as he prepares to make his third attempt to bring his case before the appropriate Article III Section 2 court. The primary concern is how to obtain justice in the US District Court of the Eastern District of Missouri in light of the recent anti-Shemitic (Semitic) remarks, KKK right of FREE speech favorable rulings and emergency orders, as well as, an unconstitutional approach when judging a Hebrew Yisraelite, an individual of African descent who has reclaimed his heritage, culture, birth right name and nationality.
The final conclusion of Chief Justice Taney in the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford case was the following;
“The question before us is whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate [60 U.S. 405]and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no
rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.”
1856 to 2013 is one hundred and fifty seven (157) years; how far have we come? YOU be the JUDGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
New Governance Model Program
International Council of Elders has introduced a new governance model that allows Camps and Communities to pursue sovereignty as autonomous nation states. Allowing individuals in their groups to pursue their individual sovereignty as a part of the United Nation of Yisrael Divine Covenant Government in Exile. International Council of Elders has recently created an Inter-Governmental Organization that provides the infrastructure and a neutral place for Camps and Communities to work together as a Nation.
The United Nation of Yisrael is on the record and we are going through the ratification process currently. Get involved and make a difference by reviewing the documents and adding your name to the ratification instrument.
Executive Council of Elders
C/O 14104 Warwick Boulevard #2046
Newport News, NON-DOMESTIC w/o United States Virginia near [ 23609 for reference only ]
Ask for Avraham
Phone: +1 757-447-4UNY (4869)
Ask for Hadurah
Or use our contact form.
All the latest news and events from our community.
We're working with organizations and communities all over the world. We will list our worldwide partners at a later time: