ease

   

THE NATIONAL REPUBLIC
DIVINE AND NATIONAL MOVEMENT OF THE WORLD

Mu?ur Americans, Aboriginal and Indigenous Natural Peoples of Northwest
Amexem, Northwest Africa I North America I ?The North Gate?

New Orleans, Louisiana Republic January 13, 2016

Yahmel Yaffu Ali Bey Department of Safety and Permits
AND Historic District Landmarks Commission
Yanamaria Latasha Bey Vieux Carre Commission for Historic, Zoning,
And Building Violations
VS 1300 Perdido St., Room 7W03
NEW ORLEANS, LA REPUBLIC [70112]
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

NOTICE OF CHARTERED EJECTMENT

 

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal. Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent.

 

IGNORANTIAL LLEGIS, NEMINEM EXCUSAT
Ignorance of the Law is no excuse.
To Whom It May Concern:

The property situated at the addresses commonly referred to as: 34-04 North Ram part Street.
New Orleans. Louisiana Republic [70117] with a legal description commonly referred to as follows:
Municipal District 3: Square 286', Lot 21 N. Rampart, i9 102, Latitude. Longitude (DMS) 37?
55.1124? N, 90? 2" 26.52343? W, has been SEISED 1N DEMESNEAS OF FEE, by Yanamaria Latasha
Bey, who is part and parcel with the land, ?Authorized Representative of the Washitaw Nation?, in
an estate in fee-simple as a corporeal hereditament and now deemed the true lawful possessor of
freehold property. Yanamaria Latasha Bey has seised as the true possessor of the land itself, with an
estate of inheritance in fee-simple absolute. In the act of ALLODIUM peaceable possession,
Yanamaria Latasha Bey is the true possessor bona?ed ?nding the property in haereditas jacens prior
to possession. Exercising rights in full capacity as in full life denoted as a Natural Person and an
indigenous American National, Yanamaria Latasha Bey, lineal heir performed peaceable possession
in the law of/La Ley favour llinheritance dlun homeJ



All public of?cials, Of?cers of government bodies politic, in all branches/departments,
Executive, Legislative, or Judicial, being of Oath, of Of?ce, bonded to ?delity, are under
ministerial duty, Supervisors v. United States ex rel. 71 U.S. 435, 4 Wall 435, U.S. v.
Thomas, 15 Wall 337, U.S. v. Lee, 106, US 196, 1 S. Ct. 240, ?duciary/trustees, U.S. v.
Carter, 217 US 286, 30 S. Ct. 515, ?The implication of a trust is the implication of every duty
proper to a trust . . .Whoever is a ?duciary or in conscience chargeable as a ?duciary is expected
to live up to them.? Buffum v. Peter Barceloux Co. 289 US 227,237: 77 L. ?Ed 1140, 1146,
cited Braun v. Hamen, 103 2d 685 (1939), wherein it further states ?Being ?duciaries, the

 

PUBLIC NOTICE

THIS DOCUMENT IS NOTICE TO: all Public Of?cials and to all whom it may concern as employees,
citizens and residents, of?cers, agents and/or representatives of the following entities: UNITED STATES, United
States, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, America, AMERICA, US., USA., US, U.S.A., State of Louisiana,
STATE OF LOUISIANA, LA., or ?this State?, of the ?owing Declarations, Lawful, Honorable Clari?cations
and other important matters of concern contained herein.

Political Status and Allodia] Title of Permanent Character
222141 TRUTH A-l]

AND PUBLIC 

Yanamaria Latasha Bey, Political Status Classi?ed-Truth A-l Freehold by Inheritance Registration
Number: AA 222141 Recorded with the United states Department of Justice Notice to all Federal and State public
corporate of?cials.

The Moabites from the land of Moab who received permission from Pharaohs of Egypt to settle and inhabit
North?West Africa; they were the founders and are the true possessors of the present United Washitaw De
Dugdahmoundyah Mu?ur, A1 Moroccan Empire [North America]. With their Canaanite, Hittite, and Amorite
brethren who sojourned from the land of Canaan seeking new homes. Their dominion and inhabitation extended
from North-East and South-West Africa, across great Atlantis even unto the present North, South, and Central
America and Mexico and the Atlantis Islands; before the great earthquake, which caused the Atlantic Ocean. The
River Nile was dredged and made by the ancient Pharaohs of Egypt, in order to trade with the surrounding
kingdoms. Also the Niger river was dredged by the great Pharaoh of Egypt in those ancient days for trade, and it
extends eastward from the River Nile, westward across The Great Atlantic. ?It was used for trade and
transportation.? As stated in XLVII EGYPT, THE CAPITAL EMPIRE OF THE DOMINION OF
in our Holy Koran Circle Seven Covenant book prepared by the Holy Prophet Noble Drew Ali our
founder.

L.S. Yanamaria Latasha Bey, B.M. [Sealed]

Signed only in correct sovereign capacity as Bene?ciary

To the Original Grant to the Political Status Classi?ed-Truth A-l
Freehold by Inheritance Registration Number: AA 22141

-Cite-

22 USC Chapters 2 Consular Courts

-Excite-

Title 22 Foreign relations and Intercourse

TITLE 22 CHAPTER 2 14] to 143 141 to 143, Repealed. Aug.l,l956, ch. 807, 70 Stat. 774 Act Aug. 1,
1956, repealed sections 141 to 143 effective upon the date, which the President determined to be appropriate for the
relinquishment of jurisdiction of the United States in Morocco. Jurisdiction of the United States in Morocco was
relinquished by memorandum of President Eisenhower dated Sept. 15, 1956. Notice was given to Morocco on Oct.
6, 1956, and all pending cases were disposed of by 1960. See Bulletin of the State Department Vol. 35:909, page
844, Section 141, R.S. 4083, 4125, 4126, 4127; act June 14, 1878m ch. 193, 20 Stat. 131, related to judicial
authority generally of ministers and consuls of United States in China, Siam, Turkey, Morocco, Muscat, Abyssinia,
Persia, and territories formerly part of Ottoman Empire including Egypt. Section 142, R.S. 4084, related to general
criminal jurisdiction of ministers and consuls of United States and venue in civil cases.

L.S. Yanamaria Latasha Bey, B.M. [Sealed]

Signed only in correct sovereign capacity as Bene?ciary

To the Original Grant to the Political Status Classified-Truth A?l
Freehold by Inheritance Registration Number: AA 222141

 

 

PRINCIPALS AND DEFINITIONS

ABANDONNIENT: The surrender, relinquishment, disclaimer, or cession of
property or of rights. Voluntary relinquishment of all right, title, claim and possession,
with the intention of not reclaiming it. The giving up of a thing absolutely, without
reference to any particular person or purpose, as vacating property with the intention of
not returning, so that it may be appropriated by the next comer or ?nder. Intention to
forsake or relinquish the thing is an essential element, to be proved by visible acts. The
voluntary relinquishment of possession of a thing by the possessor with intention of
terminating his possession of it, but without vesting it in any other person. The
relinquishing of all title, possession, or claim, or virtual, intentional throwing away of
property.

Abandonment means, both the intention to abandon and the external act by which the
intentions are carried into effect. In determining whether one has abandoned his property or
rights, the intentions, the ?rst and paramount object of inquiry, for there can be no abandonment
without the intention to abandon. Generally, labandonment/ can arise from a single act or from a
series of acts.

Time is not an essential element of ?abandonment?, although the lapse of time may be
evidence of an intention to abandon, and where it is accompanied by acts manifesting such an
intention, it may be considered in determining whether there has been abandonment.

?Abandonment? differs from surrender in that surrender requires an agreement, and
forfeiture, in that forfeiture may be against the intention of the party alleged to have forfeited.

UNIED NATIONS: INDIGENOUS. Those people having a historical continuity with pre-
invasion and pre-colonial societies consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the
societies now prevailing in those territories or parts of them. They form at present non?dominant
sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations,
their ancestml territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis for their continued existence as
peoples in accordance with their own Cultural patterns, social institutions, and legal systems.
Indigenous means [Natural Person] are human beings and sovereigns of the land, because they
are the rightful possessors of the land. This is coming from the LAW DICTIONARY
7t Edition.

AMERICAN, 11. an Aboriginal or one of the various copper-colored natives found on the
American Continent by the European, the original application of the name. Webster?s 1828
American Dictionary of the English language and 1936. Webster?s unabridged 20"1 century
dictionary.

ESTATE OF IN FEE-SIMPLE ABSOLUTE:

This type of fee simple, as thus deve10ped, has de?nite characteristics:
(1) it is a present estate in land that is of inde?nite duration;
(2) it is freely alienable;
(3) it carries with it the right of possession; and most importantly;
(4) the holder may make use of any portion of the freehold without being beholden to any
person. 16. Thompson, Commentaries on the Modern Law of Real Property, Section
1856,p.412 ed. 1924).

 

SEISED IN DEMESNE AS OF FEE. This is the strict technical expression used to
describe the act of possessing in ?an estate in fee-simple in possession in a corporeal
hereditament.? The word ?seised? is used to express the ?seisin? or possessor?s possession of a
freehold property: the phrase ?in de mesne,? or in his demesne,? (in dominico suo) signi?es that
he is seised as the true possessor of the land itself, add not merely of the seigniory or services;
and the concluding words,? as of fee,? import that he is seised of an estate of inheritance in fee-
simple. Where SEISI 101 the subject is incorporeal, or the estate expectant on a precedent
freehold, the words ?in his demesne? are omitted) Co. Litt. 17a; Fleta, 1. 5, c. 5.

?Land is often a necessary and suf?cient condition on which the right to adequate
housing is absolutely contingent for many individuals and even entire communities?
Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a
component of the right to an adequate standard of living, Miloon Kathari, 41 


?Should be seen as the right to live somewhere in security, peace and dignity? Committee
on Economical Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General Cement 4, The right to
adequate housing (art. 11 7(Dec. 13, 1991 [Hereafter CESR, General Comment 

?Everyone has the right to possess property alone as well as in association with others
{and} no one shall arbitrarily, deprived of his property.? UDHR, supra note 26 art. 17

?All appropriate means?.. .. (ICESCR, supra note 26 at art. Refraining from
forced evictions and ensur[ing] that the law is enforced against its agents or third parties who
carry out forced evictions? General Comment 7, supra note 36 at 3.

?Measures shall be taken in appropriate cases to safeguard the right of the peoples
concerned to use of lands not exclusively occupied by them, but which they have traditionally
had access for their subsistence and traditional activities?

?Exercise control, to the extent possible, over their own economic, social and cultural
developments? C169 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169)
Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (Entry into
force: 05 Sep. 1991) Adoption: ILC session (27 Jun. 1989)

Please enter any and all orders necessary to achieve all of
the above, ?In The Interest of Justice."

Upon Default, all matters are settled res judicata and stare decisis:

?The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it
must be proven.? Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980)

- ?Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.? And ?Jurisdiction, once challenged,
cannot be assumed it must be decided.? Basso v. Utah Power Light Co. 495
F2d 906, 910.

0 ?Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.?
Stuck v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751.211 P2d 389.

0 ?There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.? Joyce v. US, 474 FM
215.

?The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction.? Rosemond v. Lambert,
DOA 

 

First Nation-State

Unity-Washitaw: de Dugdahmoundyah: aga-Mu?ur:
Nation
Declaration of Admiralty Jurisdiction (Band of two Natural
Persons)

*Legal and Public Notice*

I am NOT a ?United States? citizen subject to its jurisdiction. The United States is an
entity created by the US. Constitution with jurisdiction as described on the following pages: I
am NOT a ?resident? of, an ?inhabitant? of, a ?franchise? of, a ?subject? of, a ?war of, the
?property? of, the ?chattel? of, or ?subject to the jurisdictions? of any corporate federal
government, corporate state government, corporate county government, corporate city
government or corporate municipal body politic created under the authority of the US.
Constitution. I am NOT subject to any legislation, department, or agency created by such
authorities, nor to the jurisdiction of any employees, of?cers, or agency deriving their authority
there from. Further, I am NOT a subject of the Administrative and Legislative Article IV
Courts of the several states, or Article I Courts of the United States, or bound by precedents of
such courts deriving their jurisdiction from said authorities. Take Notice that I hereby revoke,
cancel and make void ab initio any such instrument or any presumed election made by any of the
several states or the United States government or any agency or department thereof that I am or
ever have voluntarily elected to be treated as a United States citizen subject to its jurisdiction or
resident of any territory, possession, instrumentality or enslave under the sovereignty or
exclusive jurisdiction of any of the several states or the United States as de?ned in the US.
Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 and Article IV, Section 3, Cause 2. I am NOT
a legal ?person? born or naturalized in the ?United States,? NOT subject to the jurisdiction of
the legislative democracy of the federal ?United States,? g. District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
US. Virgin Island, Guam, American Samoa) or any other territory, area or enclave ?within the
United States.? The term ?United States? and are NOT to be construed or assumed
under any circumstances to imply or include the sovereign ?50 states? or the ?united states of
America.? I am NOT a citizen? described in 26 CFR 1.1-1 and the 14th Amendment.
Furthermore, and reference to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution maintaining privileges
over right is invalid. (See A Historic Overview of the Unlawful Enactment of the 14th
Amendment by the Supreme Court of Utah; Deyett v. Turner, (1967) 439 P.2d.266; State v.
Phillips, (1975) 540 P.26.936. Therefore I am an ?alien? with respect to the ?United States?. I
am therefore, as described ?nonresident alien? with respect to
the ?United States? and am outside the general venue and jurisdiction of the ?United States?. I
am presumed to be a ?nonresident alien? defined within Title 26, USC 1.871-4, the Internal
Revenue Code (IRC), however, not the same ?nonresident alien? defined within the IRC
pursuant to Title 42, USC 41 1 My income is NOT derived from sources ?within the
federal United States,? ?nor am I effectively connected with the performance of the function of a
public of?ce? ?within the federal United States.? My wages are part of my ?foreign estate?
pursuant to Title 26, USC 7701 (31), (Note the ?Right to Property? clause of the Fifth
Amendment.) I do not live ?within? the geographical areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction as
de?ned in the Federal Area Chart. I do not live ?within? ANY of the ten (10), regional federal
areas, territories, or enclaves identi?ed by the numerical, postal zip code. I am a ?nonresident
alien? outside both general and tangential venue and jurisdiction of Title 26, United States

 

Additionally, as a natural person, a native, natural being, and human being, Yanamaria
Latasha Bey CANNOT be taxed, arrested, detained, or prosecuted civilly or criminally to any
colorable court of law for the expressed exercise of any God given Human and Natural Rights,
because re3pondent(s) does not belong to the Jurisdiction of the UNITED STATES.

Enter an order declaring that jurisdiction over Yanamaria Latasha Bey belongs to
herself and her sovereign tribe, Washitaw de Dugdahmoundyah, Mu?ur (Mu?ur), which is a
native tribe of the Republic of the united States of America, in which, the Washitaw enjoy
Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction. Because they are a nation within a nation. All Washitaw
Mu?urs enjoy dual citizenship status. The Washitaw Mu?urs are citizens of the united States of
America, also known as The Republic, and Citizens of their tribe, which is Washitaw.

Concluding, there must be an order to carry out ?all appropriate means? for
?refrain[ing] from forced evictions and ensur[ing] that the law is enforced against its
agents or third parties who carry out forced evictions? also in reference to Article 17
?national laws and regulations, including public inquiries where appropriate, which
provide the opportunity for effective representations of the peoples concerned? reference
CESCR, General Cement 4, supra note 30.

The First Nation-State Band merged by Yanamaria Latasha Bey and Yahmel Yaffu
Ali Bey (en propen'a persona) are full life Free Mu?ur Nationals in exercise of rights in full
capacity. Using International Proclamation to President Obama on August 4, 2011 to assist in
the explanation of full capacity ?Mu?urs are ?Heir Apparent? to the Lands and Territories
forenamed: and are the rightful benefactors to the resources and hereditament, corporeal and
incorporeal,? l/Reference: International Proclamation to President Obama with the Mu?ur
Empire on August 4. 2011.

Washitaw de Dugdahmoundyah Mu?ur is protected under:

?112. Protection of foreign officials, of?cial guests, and internationally protected persons

Whoever assaults, strikes, wounds, imprisons, or offers violence to a
foreign official, official guest, or internationally protected person or makes any
other violent attack upon the person or liberty of such person, or, if likely to
endanger his person or liberty, makes a violent attack upon his of?cial premises,
private accommodation, or means of tranSport or attempts to commit any of the
foregoing shall be ?ned under this title or imprisoned not more than three (3) years,
or both. Whoever in the commission of any such act uses a deadly or dangerous
weapon, or inflicts bodily injury, shall be ?ned under this title or imprisoned not
more than ten (10) years, or both.

Whoever willfully 

(1) Intimidates, coerces, threatens, or harasses a foreign of?cial or an
of?cial guest or obstructs a foreign of?cial in the performance of his duties;

(2) attempts to intimidate, coerce, threaten, or harass a foreign of?cial
or an of?cial guest or obstruct a foreign of?cial in the performance of his duties;
or

(3) within the United States and within one hundred feet of any building
or premises in whole or in part owned, used, or occupied for of?cial business or
for diplomatic, consular, or residential purposes by 

(A) a foreign government, including such use as a mission to an
international organization;
(B) an international organization;

 

 Nothing contained in this section shall be construed or applied so as to
abridge the exercise of rights guaranteed under the ?rst amendment to the Constitution of
the United States.

If the victim of an offense under subsection is an internationally proceed
person outside the United States, the United States may exercise jurisdiction over the
offense if (1) the victim is a representative, of?cer, employee, or agent of the United
States, (2) an offender is a national of the United States, or (3) an offender is afterwards
found in the United States. As used in this subsection, the United States includes all
areas under the jurisdiction of the United States including any of the places within the
provisions of section 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501(2) of title 49.

In the course of enforcement of subsection and any other section
prohibiting a conspiracy or attempt to violate subsection the Attorney General may
request assistance from any Federal, State, or local agency, including the Army, Navy,
and Air Force, any statute, rule, or regulation to the contrary, notwithstanding.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 688; Pub. L. 88-493, Aug. 27, 1964, 78 Stat. 610;
Pub. L. 92-539, title ?301, Oct. 24, 1972, 86 Stat. 1072; Pub. L. 94?467, Oct. 8,
1976, 90 Stat. 1999; Pub. L. 95-163, Nov. 9, 1977, 91 Stat. 1286; Pub. L. 95-
504, ?2Cb), Oct. 24, 1978, 92 Stat. 1705; Pub. L. 100-690, title VI, ?6478, Nov. 18, 1988,
102 Stat. 4381; Pub. L. 103-272,

July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1373; Pub. L. 103-322, title ?320101(b), title
(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2108, 2147; Pub. L. 104-132, title
VII, ?72l(d), Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1298; Pub, L. 104-294, title VI, 
Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507.)

WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing evidence and the authority cited therein,
Yanamaria Latasha Bey demands that this Honorable Court to enter an order(s) recognizing
her said nationality and her unalienable rights as an Aboriginal Indigenous Sovereign of the
Americas, Yanamaria Latasha Bey originates from the land; therefore, she rightfully possesses
the land.

Additionally, as a natural person, a native, natural being, and human being, Yanamaria
Latasha Bey cannot be taxed, arrested, detained, or prosecuted civilly or criminally in any
colorable court of law for the expressed exercise of any God given Human and Natural Rights,
Yanamaria Latasha Bey do not belong to the jurisdiction of the UNITED STATES.

Enter an order declaring that jurisdiction over Yanamaria Latasha Bey belongs to
herself and her sovereign tribe, Washitaw de Dugdahmoundyah Mu?ur (Mu?ur), which is a
native tribe of the Republic of the United States of America; in which, the Washitaw enjoy
Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction, because they are a nation within a nation. All Washitaw
Mu?urs enjoy dual citizenship status. The Washitaw Mu?urs are citizens of the United States of
America, also known as The Republic, and Citizens of their tribe, which is Washitaw.

Please enter any and all orders necessary to achieve
all of the above, ?In The Interest of Justice."
Upon Default, all matters are settled res judicata and stare decisis:

?Statute? is not Law,? (Floumoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3
So. 2d 244,248).

 

?An administrative agency may not ?nally decide the limits of its statutory powers; this
is a judicial function.? Social Security Board v. Nierotko 327 US 358,66 S. Ct. 637, 162
ALAR 1445, 90 L. Ed. 719. i

?The constitutional rights of an individual are fundamental and inalienable rights. They
cannot be destroyed nor diminished by legislative act, or failure to act. The duty of seeing that
they are protected and preserved inviolate falls squarely upon the shoulders of the judiciary.?
State ex ref. Ricco v. Biggs, 198 Ore. 413, 430.

Penhallow v. Donne?s Administrators (3 US. 54; 1 57; 3 Dal]. 54) ?Inasmuch
as every government is an arti?cial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a
government can interface only with other arti?cial persons. The imaginary-having neither
actuality nor substance?is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The
legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc.
thereof, can concern itself with anything other than corporate, arti?cial persons and the contracts
between them.?

?The US. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of
the union, are classi?ed as property and franchises of the federal government as an ?Individual
entity? Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 US. 193, 80 1143, 56 773.

right which is free and open to all is not the subject of a license or tax.? Chicago v.
Collins, 51 NE 907; Freeburg v. Dawson 274 F240.

?There shall be no arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty, arbitrary spoliation of
IO erty.? Barber v. Connolly, 113 US. 27, 31; Vick Vo. v. Hopkins, 118 US. 356.


?The People must be free to travel throughout the United States uninhibited by statutes,
rules or regulations.? Shapiro v. Thompson, 398 US 618, 89 S. Ct. 1322.

?The Constitution of these United States is the Supreme law of the land. Any law that is
repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.? Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US. 436.

?United States Supreme Court ruled that a police of?cer could not arrest a citizen merely
for refusing to present identi?cation.? Kolender v. Lawson (461 US. 352, 1983).

?The courts are not bound by an of?cer?s interpretation of the law under which he
presumes to act.? I-Ioffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla. 32, 227 F.417.

?It is not the duty of the US. police to protect Americans. Their job is to protect the
Corporation and arrest code breakers.? Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So. 262, Rieff v. City of
Philadelphia, 477 F. Supp. 1262; v. .C. Dept. of Justice 376 247.

State cannot impose restrictions on the acceptance of a license that will deprive the
licensee of his constitutional rights.? Ruckenbrod v. Mullins, 102 Utah 548, 133 P.2d.325, 144
ALR 839.

?Of?cers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from
liability. For they are deemed to know the law.? Owens v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445
US 62.

?hie-?nfnc flap and nears m" real nrrmertv are resnlved in

 

?It has been pointed out that the Declaration of Rights differs from the great English
charters in that it is not an assurance to the individual from a sovereign, but is a command and a
limitation of power on state of?cials BY THE PEOPLE WHO CREATED THE FORMAL
GOVERNMENT. These sections imply possible oppression and ARE DESIGNED TO ENABLE
THE VICIM TO ASSERT HIS RIGHTS, EVEN AGAINST THE Citing
Begerow In re 133 C. 349, 65 P. 828 (emphasis added)

constitution is designed as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation
capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed
by superior authority.? Ellingham v. Dye, 321 US 250; Sage v. New York, 47 NE 1096.

?What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated to the mighty hand of
the people, in which certain ?rst principles of fundamental laws are established.? Van Horne v.
Durance, 2 Ball 304

?In equity, there are certain rules prohibiting parties bearing such relations enter into
contracts with each other, courts of equity presume them to be fraudulent, and convert the
fraudulent party into a trustee.? Perry on Trusts (7th Ed) Sec. 194, in Braunn v. Hansen
(1939) 103 F.2d. 685.

Under the doctrines of res gestlle, res respondeatsuperior, as now having
prior knowledge, authority, power, opportunity to present or aid in preventing injury, damage
having been or about to be committed. Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1986, as applies to public
officials, Of?cers, by the existence of an agreement between two or more persons, acting in a
private conspiracy, through said conspiracy, to impede or hinder, obstruct or defeat the due
course of justice in a State or Territory, with the purposeful intent to deny the equal protection of
the law, under color of State law or authority, or other, Grif?n v. Breckenridge (1971) 403
US 88, 91 1790, depriving of having or exercising a Right, Federal Conspiracy to
Obstruct Justice Act (Title 42 USCS Section 1985(2)), deprivation of due process, even by
federal officials, Williams Wright (1976).

Default comprises an estoppel of all actions, administrative and judicial, by Respondents
against the Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence Section 805, p. 192, Restatement 2d of Torts
Section 894 (1) (1979), and now reasonably relied on, Wilbur National Bank v. US 294, US
120. 124-125 (1935), due to misconduct by Government agents Heckler v. Community Health
Services, 467 US 51, at 59, 60, Federal Crop ins., supra. ?It [the doctrine of Estoppel by
Silence] arises where a person is under duty to another to speak or failure to speak is inconsistent
with honest dealings.? In Re McArdles Estate, 140 Misc. 257, et seq., and Silence, to work
estoppel, must amount to bad faith, Wise v. USDC Ky., 38 F. Supp 13?0. 134, where duty and
opportunity to speak, Codd v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. 14 Wash. 2d 600, 128 2d 968, 151
ALR 316, creating ignorance of facts, Cushing v. US Mas S. 18 Supp 83, inducing person
claiming estoppel to alter his position, Braunch v.Freking, 219 Iowa 556, 258 NW 892,
knowledge of facts and of rights by person estopped, Harvy v. Richard674, willful or culpable silence, Lenconi v. Fidelity Trust Savings Bank of Fresno, Cal.
App. 490, 273 P. 103 et seq., ?Silence?.? implies knowledge, and an opportunity to act upon it,
Pence v. Langdon, 99 US 78@ 581, et seq.

?The constitutional rights of an individual are fundamental and inalienable rights. They
cannot be destroyed nor diminished by legislative act, or failure to act. The duty of seeing that

they are protected and preserved inviolate falls squarely upon the shoulders of the judiciary.?
anfn av rap Din-Inn tr Din-ac 109 A11 41?

 

 

ADJ UNCATED PEACABLE POSSESSION

PUBLIC 

The act of conveyance by this re5ponse to carry out peaceable possession through
process of ejectment of allodium land, part and parcel designated as follows:

3404 North Rampart Street. New Orleans, Louisiana Republic [70117.] with a legal description
commonly referred to as follows: Municipal District 3: Square 286; Lot 21 N. Rampart. 19 s: 102,

Latitude. Longitude (DMS) 29? 57? 55.13241" N. 90?? 2? 2.6.5236? W,

By lineal heirs of First Nation-State Unity-Washitaw de Dugdahmoundyah: Naga?Mu?ur:
Nation represented by First Nation-State Band consisting of Yanamaria Latasha Bey and
Yahmel Yaffu Ali Bey, With Due Process of Law, will be faxed to 1300 Perdido Street,
Room 7W 03, New Orleans, Louisiana Republic [70112] at (504) 658-7211 and displayed for

Public Notice on January 14, 2016.

1 -

 

 

 

 

 

persons and the contracts between them.

Penhallow v. Doanes Administrators (3 U.S. 54; IL. Ed.
?Governments are Corporations.? Inasmuch as every government is an arti?cial person,
an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other arti?cial
persons. The imaginary - having neither actuality nor substance is foreclosed from creating and
attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any
law, agency, aspect, court, etc. thereof, can concern itself with anything other than corporate, arti?cial

57; Dal]. 54) de?nes governments

 

 

 

 

 



 

 





 

 

 



In the act of not responding within 10 days to all

evidence transcended in this conveyance, the notice is now

deemed as true by default.

   
  

ta .

 {Mtge

it






re.  


 

I



-~sr>r




:1

I.



 

I may.? 




 r-gr-rz'r-cmr-