Motion — United States v. Maurice Fayne (Dkt. 35, N.D. Ga. No. 1:20-cr-00228, GAND 278523)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · No. 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL · Doc. 35 · 2020-07-24 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

FILED IN CLERK’S OFFICE
U.&D.C. Atlanta
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
JUL 242020
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
)
CASE NO. 1:20-CR-228
Plaintiff,
)
)
CASE NOs. 1:20-MJ-370, 364,361
)
360,355 and 1:20-MC-833
v.
)
)
MOTION TO DISMISS
)
PURSUANT TO ALL RIGHTS
MAURICE FAYNE
)
RESERVED (AMENDED)
Defendant,
)
Judicial Notice ofAdjudicative Facts
COMES NOH~ by Special Appearance, the Entitlement Holder, that the office of my ap
pointment delegates as Beneficial Owner (in said properties ), pursuant to my unalienable power
of appointment, I am that I am,”
maurice johnson fayne-el©”, nom deguerre: “ Maurice
Johnson Fayn
“, hereby nominate: Walker, Linda T., D.b.a.: HON. LINDAI WALKER,
D.b.a.: UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, D.b.a.: [UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA, CASE NO. 1:20-CR-228, & CASE
NOs. 1:20-MJ-370, 364, 361, 360,355 and 1:20-MC-833
as trustee, to receive this NOTICE
as trustee of this matter, in good faith, to make known my intent as it relates to the Adjudicative
Facts regarding: “Fayne, Maurice, Johnson” ©, corp.sole Dba.: “MAURICE JOHNSON
FAYNE” ,“ © FAYNE, MAURICE JOHNSON” ©, corp.sole Dba.: “MAURICE JOHNSON
FAYNE” ©, as a MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
1. WHEREAS, Affiant is domiciled at the Moorish Empire, and receiving mail through a
private 3rd Party Agent at a Commercial Mail Receiving Agency, situated at: do 6608 N
Western Ave # 1307, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma [73116], Affiant is not within the “Federa
MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO
I of 8
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 1 of 43

Area” as defined at [ US. Code §‘ 110. Same; defmnitionsj
(e) The term “Federal area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of
the United States or any department, establishment, or agency, of the United States; and any
Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State,
shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State. Which is hereby Constitution
ally challenged by constitutional question.
2. WHEREAS, Affiant is an aniyunwiya Moorish American National, [Please see Exhib
it 1, which is Self Authenticating Evidence, pursuant to the Federal Rules ofEvidence, Rule
902. (6) Newspapers and Periodicals. Printed material purporting to be a newspaper or peri
odical. 1’ Affiant is not a 14th Amendment citizen of the United States as defined at [28 U.S.
Code § 3002. Definitions, (15) “United States” means—(A) a Federal corporation;.] Which is
hereby Constitutionally challenged by constitutional question.
3. WHEREAS, Affiant is an aniyunwiya Moorish American National, [Please see Exhib
it 1, which is Self Authenticating Evidence, pursuant to the Federal Rules ofEvidence, Rule
902. (6) Newspapers and Periodicals. Printed material purporting to be a newspaper or peri
odical. 1’ Affiants true name is” maurice johnson fayne-el© “, nom deguerre: “Maurice
Johnson Fayne© “, it is not” MAURICE FAYNE”, it is also not “MAURICE FAYNE, a/
k/a Arkansas Mo”, as expressed inside of the records of this cause of action. Thereby be
ing repugnant to the Constitution and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 17.
Plaintiff and Defendant; Capacity; Public Officers, (a) Real Party in Interest. (1) Designation
in General. An action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. Which is
hereby Constitutionally challenged by constitutional question.
4. WF{EREAS, Affiant is an aniyunwiya Moorish American National, [Please see Exhib
it 1, which is Self Authenticating Evidence, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule
MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO
2 of 8
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 2 of 43

902. (6) Newspapers and Periodicals. Printed material purporting to be a newspaper or peri
odical.], [Pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Article 110,
Right of visit, “Payne, Maurice, Johnson© “, corp.sole Dba.: “MAURICE JOHNSON
FAYNE© “, “PAYNE, MAURICE JOHNSON© “, corp.sole Dba.: “MAURICE JOHNSON
FAYNE© “, is NOT: (a) engaged in piracy; (b) engaged in the slave trade; (c) engaged in
unauthorized broadcasting; (d) without nationality;or (e) though flying a foreign flag or refus
ing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship. Affiant here
by Notices all interested parties that any further encroachment regarding said properties shall
be deemed an egregious act ofPII{ACY in bad faith. Which is hereby Constitutionally chal
lenged by constitutional question.
5. WHEREAS, Affiant is an aniyunwiya Moorish American National, [Please see Exhib
it 1, which is SelfAuthenticating Evidence, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule
902. (6) Newspapers andPeriodicals. Printed material purporting to be a newspaper or peri
odical. ], Pursuant to the 59th Congress, 2d Session, CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED
STATES, EXPATRIATION, AND PROTECTION ABROAD, [Please see Exhibit 21” There
are, strictly speaking, no Moroccan laws relating to citizen ship ofMoorish subjects in Moroc
co. The fundamental laws ofthis non-Christian country are based entirely upon the Islamitic
code, no part of which treats of the subject of citizenship. here are, however, numerous treaties
and conventions between the various Christian countries and the Moorish Empire, by means
ofwhich citizenship in this country is defined; but, as I understand, from the above-acknowl
edged instructions, that it is not the desire of the Department to call for a report upon such
lines, I will therefore confme these remarks to general conditions existing, which may possi
bly be of some use in connection with the information desired. (1) Citizenship in Morocco
may be said to be governed by the laws pertaining to the same in other countries, with the ex
ception that all persons resiing in Morocco who can not prove foreign citizenship or protection
are considered ipso jure as Moorish subjects. (2 and 3) Moorish subjects lost their nationality
only by becoming naturalized in, or protected by, another country having treaty relations with
MOTION TO DJSMISS PURSUANT TO
3 of 8
ALL RIGIITS RESERVE])
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 3 of 43

the Moorish Empire. Affiant has never been naturalized from the dejure Nationality of
aniyunwiya Moorish American National. Which is hereby Constitutionally challenged by con
stitutional question.
6. WHEREAS, [Pursuant to the PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 90TH
CONGRESS FIRST SESSION, VOLUME 113-PART 12, JUNE 12, 1967, TO JUNE 20,
1967], the 14th Amendment was never properly lawfully adopted, [Please see Exhibit 3 ], Af
fiant hereby Constitutionally challenges its applicability to this said matter.
7. WHEREAS, [Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure] all” Charging In
struments “, on this cause of action, is hereby declared to be Unconstitutional. Not limited to
but including; any and all WARRANTS, INDICTMENTS, SUMMONS, REPORTS etc., as
they were not executed [Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rules 3] as
there is not a Judges sigliature on Any Warrant, also there was never a Constitutional WAR
RANT issued used to seize Affiants property, as it was not served upon any party present at
the moment of SEIZURE. All said décuments also do not possess the required seals for them
to be lawfully executed. Affiant hereby Constitutionally challenges, by Constitutional question
any and all charging instruments used on this said cause.
8. WHEREAS, Affiant’s natural Mother affirmed by Affidavit, the unconscionable is
suance of the BIRTH CERTIFICATE for” MAURICE JOHNSON FAYNE” etc., having oc
curred while she was under legal disability, and was not in a lawful capacity to contract in
good faith with a meeting of the minds [Please see Exhibit 4].
9. WHEREAS, Affiant has recently acquired beneficial interest in the Unincorporated
Foreign Entities, D.b.a.: 1. “MAURICE FAYNE” ©, Oklahoma Secretary of State #
MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO
4 of 8
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 4 of 43

3612856585, 2. “MAURICE JOHNSON FAYNE” ©, Oklahoma Secretary of State #
3612856041,3. “FAYNE, MAURICE JOHNSON” ©, Oklahoma Secretary of State #
3612856042, Affiant is entitled to: [Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution for the united
States ofAmerica:] Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. [Please see Exhibit 5 j
1 O.WHEREAS, Affiant has recently acquired beneficial interest in the Unincorporated
Foreign Entities, D.b.a.: 1. “MAURICE FAYNE” ©, Oklahoma Secretary of State #
3612856585, 2. “MAURICE JOHNSON FAYNE” ©, Oklahoma Secretary of State #
3612856041, 3. “FAYNE, MAURICE JOHNSON” ©, Oklahoma Secretary of State #
3612856042, Pursuant to [Public Law 97-116 Please see Exhibit 3] SEC. 12. Subsection (b)
(1XA) “(A) no conveyance used by any person as a common carrier in the transaction ofbusi
ness as a common carrier shall be forfeited under the provisions of this section unless it shall
appear that the owner or other person in charge of such conveyance was a consenting party or
privy to the illegal act; and “(B) no conveyance shall be forfeited under the provisions of this
section by reason of any act or omission established by the owner thereof to have been corn-
miffed or omitted by any person other than such owner while such conveyance was unlawfully
in the possession of a person other than the owner in violation of the criminal laws of the
United States or of any State.
WHEREAS, Affiant was not in possession of said ENTITIES, at the time of the commis
sion of a violation, and was not a consenting party, or privy to an illegal act, Afflant hereby
moves the court to DISMISS this cause of action, with prejudice.
11. WHEREAS, 1. “MAURICE FAYNE© “, Oklahoma Secretary of State #
3612856585,2. “MAURICE JOHNSON FAYNE© “, Oklahoma Secretary of State #
3612856041, 3. “FAYNE, MAURICE JOBNSON© “, Oklahoma Secretary of State #
3612856042, are Unincorporated Foreign Trade names, Affiant has met the Margin Require-
MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO
5 of 8
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 5 of 43

ments to have, to obtain, receive, or enjoy the beneficial use of a loan or other extension of
credit from any lender, as defined at [15 U.S. Code § 78g (01.
12. WHEREAS, Article III of the Constitution for the united States ofAmerica, “Section
1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such
inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” “Section 2. In all
cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state
shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.
WHEREAS, Affiant is an aniyunwiya Moorish American, territorial, and personal juris
diction is hereby challenged, as the Constitution affirms, any matters surrounding any quasi ju
risdiction may only be heardby one “Supreme Court”. Also affirmed at [22 U.S.C. §~14l to
143. Repealed. Aug. 1, 1956. ph. 807.70 Stat. 774 ActAug. 1, 1956, repealed sections 141 to
143 effective upon the date which the President determined to be appropriate for the relinquish
ment ofjurisdiction of the United States in Morocco. Jurisdiction of the United States in Moroc
co was relinquished by memorandum ofPresident 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.
13. It has come to my unconscionable awareness, as it is at this moment unbeknownst to
the unsuspecting American people, that the “SOCIAL SECURJTY ADMINISTRATION” is
not a part of, and is separate from the united States ofAmerica. Also that the “SOCIAL SE
CURITYADMINISTRATION” is in fact receiving Federal awards as a “SOLE PROPRI
ETOR”, using DUNS: 787274919, CAGE Code: 361H0.
I am hereby declaring MONEY ORDER 369 to be VOID, as it relates to any quasi
presumption of jurisdiction.
So as not to have these matters to “BOOMERANG” back to me, I have intentionally
dissolved any and all quasi contractual obligations between myself and the “SOLE
MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO
6 of 8
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 6 of 43

PROPRIETOR”, doing business as the “SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION”,
doing business as “Office of Hearings & AppealsZ~, as well as the “ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT OF BEALTU” regarding “STATE OF ARKANSAS STATE FILE
NUMBER: 6512262”.
Please see Exhibit I and Exhibit 2
Signed in the presence of
~TCkInn~
County
State
Signed and affirmed to before me, a Notary on this [ 20th day of July, 2020 j.
C~~Ani~
Notary Public
My Commission Expires
CY//t, /Pa~ i
Seal;
In testimony whereof, I, Ex parte: maurice Johnson fayne-el©, certify under penalty of
perjury, that the statements made herein are true and correct to the best of my honor, knowledge,
customs, and beliefs. I have hereunto caused my appellation to be subscribed this [ 20th day of
July, 2020 1.
lam thatlam:
aniyunwiya moorish american
All Rights Reserved
Without Prejudice
Deo Volente
Jus Cogens
MOTION TO DISMJSS PURSUANT TO
7 of 8
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 7 of 43

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Maurice Fayne Johnson certif~’ that I have this day served the Clerk of Court, James N.
Hatten, United States Attorney Byung J. Pak, Assistant United States Attorney Bernita
Malloy, Assistant United States Attorney John Russell Phillips, Assistant United States
Attorney Michael John Brown and U.S. Attorney General, William Barr with this MO
TION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, Fax, email and or
by United States Postal Service
De
livery thereon to ensure delivery: Dated this
day of July, 2020.
by:
All natural rights reserved.
maunce johnson fayne-eI©
es N. Hatten Clerk of Court
U.S. Attorney General, William Barr
950 PennsylvaniaAve., NW~
Washington, D.C. 20530
UMTED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
2211 United States Courthouse
75 Ted Turner Drive, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3309
(404) 215- 1600
Attorney Bemita Malloy
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
United States Attorney’s Office
75 Ted Turner Drive, SW #600
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3309
(404) 581-6000
Email: Bernita.Ma1loy~usdoj .gov
Attorney Michael John Brown
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
United States Attorney’s Office
75 Ted Turner Drive, SW #600
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3309
Email: Michael.j .brown2@usdoj.gov
Attorney Byung J. Pak
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
United States Attorney’s Office
75 Ted Turner Drive, SW #600
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3309
MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO
8 of 8
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 8 of 43

Case 1:20-cr-00228-UNA
Document 33
Filed 07/20/20
Page 9 of 55
EXHIBIT 1
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 9 of 43

pbnng Your GAas “fleø
Legal Notice
God We Trust
LtecIaialo!’ cil Nallolailty
NcdiceOtsf9c1a1 Anpenhaite
am hut lam,
Mauiice,iOhiiSOfl
Fayne~’
. ~n fill hie, ii
~;.‘i[i pomona. Sill (Iris. iii S(itoprnpriti,
by natural ,~sue. fit bon.4.cioiy and
1I?I1
if- ‘‘ Fayne, Mnnrir.e
,lohnsnnt’
‘. corp snic’ Ota
‘ M;it,r,co Johnson Fayrie~
FAYNE, MAUnI(;r JouNsc)Nt
~, coip sole Dba.’ “ MAt JRICE
JOHNSON’ r,ywr~
Having ,eacliedlhe age of rnafr~rity, hem,;
aboriginal to I
:111 ‘weSt’)’ ii a
ilhwosterll shot es of Africa,
the Atlantw I-’a’idc Ue
nlinonlal Americas, being dnv cerh—
bed. he’ oh
alt” or to rlerlttre my tribal intention In be as toy
fwdigre s.d cci’
as ‘P anryunwiya Mcorish American Na
tiortat. b~
I
c’t,~on ct the Urded Slates. I declare permanent
and unalienable. alieq’anco to the Moorish Emp~re, Societas Re
pubhcac Ea M Maurikar.inis Estado~ The Constitution for the
united Slates of America Arlicle Ill Section 2, Inte
ational Law
United Nations Dec’aral’o’i on the Rights of Indiqenous Peoples,
and all natural laws governing moors, and hereby declare and
proclaim my natiorntity as an aniyunwiya moorish american
moslem lam that I am
Maurice Johnson Fayne
“. from this
day foiward in harmony with my Nationality I Status / Junsd’c
lion, shat he known as:
maurice johnson fayne-el~’’. Notice
of Merging of Legal Title with Equitable Title : This order is to
preserve legal and equitable title and to reserve all rights, title
arid interest, in the properly, Re:
‘ Fayne, Maurice Johnson
corp.sole Dba.:
Maurice Johnson Fayne?a” “FAYNE, MAU
RICE JOHNSONt “, corp.sole Dba : “MAURICE JOHNSON
FAYNE® “, to the depositor:
maunce johnson fayne-el~ “. All
properly, of the same Issue and amount, in like kind and specie,
is to be returned fully intact
as a Special Deposit order of the
Depositor I Beneficiary / Bailor / Donor I Principal / Creditor’
maurice johnson fayne-el
as a special deposit order in lawful
money. This special deposit is to be used exclusively for the hen
eM of:” Payne Cl, Maunce Johnson Twst~ “. an Unincorporated
Divine Grantor Trust. This deposit is not to be commingled with
general assets of any bank
nor depositary I trustee I agent I
baltee I donee I debtor This deposit is not limited to, but includ
ing: discharge and set off, of any and all outstanding liabilities
as accord and satisfaction, Any and All Attorneys with a Ltcense
from the BAR Association are expticmy prohibited from adminis
tra~ng “ Fayne-el Maunce Johnson Trust
property without
handwritten consent from each and every trustee, after said At
torneys have furnished their nationality, and Principal for whom’s
interest they are working, [pursuant to Public Law 75-5B3j to
trustees in plain writing All Rights Reserved
No. 13545
?-17-24-31;5-7-20-4tx
0
-
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CROSS COUNTY, ARKANSAS
PROBATE DIVISION
IN THE MAilER OF THE ESTATE OF
HAZEL KENNON deceased
CASE NO. 19PR-2020563
NOTIQE
WE BUY JUNK riding &
push mowers and other
small engine equipment.
Call 870.588-7954. 4-24-
20-lin
CLASSIFIED
QEAD.t
LINE: GARAGE SALE
ADS AND ALL OTHER
CLASSIFIED LINE ADS
MUST BE SUBMITTED
BEFORE 4:00 Pit
ON TUESDAYS
TO APPEAR IN
THAT
FRIDAY’S
PAPER.
THE_DEADLINEIQB
LEQALJ1O11~ELJS
10:00_A.MjfiØ3~
ThE WEEK BEFORf
TH~14QIIQLLS I~AP:
PEARL
AN NO U NC EMEN TS
OVER *10K IN DEBT?
Be debt free in 24-48
months. Pay a fraction of
what you owe. A+ BBB
rated. Call Nationai bebt
Relief 877-243.7692, 10~
1 9,18-ttn
MEDICAL
VIAGRA
AND
CIALIS
USERS~ 50 Pills SPECIAL
$99.00 FREE Sflippingl
100% guaranteed, CALL
NOW! 855-685-5420. 5-1-
204fn
STiLL PAVING too much
for your MEDICATION?
Save up to 90% on RX re
fill! Order today and re
ceive flee shipping on 1st
order
- prescription re
quited, Call
1-877.610.
Last known ~u*lress 131 Hwy 6$ MuCrory Arkansas 72101
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 10 of 43

— .
,r.------,~,n,?n-n’-r
Case 1:20-cr--00228 LJNA
Document 3
FiIed~O7/2O/2O
Page.1O of 55
V -GUI’ &~ ~ sgfleq
!:I~ ~,
WE I3LJY JUNK
cling &
ni .sii movie F and other
nil PflQ~ ‘3 %tiil iLllPflI
1. U
P70 9’38 ~5’
I
q.’IikJ’.S~fl’ .c.’,rcy~
;w’~’cas. l;”iig d;i~ c’
ii to hE ~is::V
a ~ [iøuush Aii,t”ican ‘In
V
F hO Suites
I dec~a’~ pttnhiiii?fli
•
he \4acsh Enjme, Socielas ~
r Ia ‘r~
Ti~p C.on~iitiJT~’i tnr tiit~
.li..j’ t.i’’’”•’’
/,iii
(a Iii t;a(.i’Oii 2. i:ieiI,cu~;3t laVi
United Na’,.
j Or 1I~’’re.i C’ me Ri iO~. ‘In hcepou’ Peojic.s.
and a ~
,~ nw:,
ii oars and hereby dad 3’? a no
pi ucla ni
‘aiai’a. ly i~ a,’
a MvuiiWIVH ‘nooi sb a mci uan
moslen
I ~sn n~
I air
Maurk:e Jnhi’sun Fayne
horn Il~ts
day lonvama
ii flai mao; iy with my Naiional,Iy
Status
Jin s&c•
lion shat be I,ncwi’ as:
maurice ~hnscn tayne-el
Notice
of Me’o ng of Legal Tiuc with Equitable rifle : TI’s order is to
preserve eaat and equitable title anti to reseive all rights, title,
uiid inierest, in the p’uperiy, Re:’ Fayne. Maurice Johnson?
corp sole Ciba.:
‘ Maurice Johnson Faynet”, “ FAYNE, MAU
RICE JOHNSON~
‘, corp.sole Ciba.
MAURICE JOf-INSON
FAThE.c. “, to the depositor “ niauhce ~hnson fayne-eIC’ All
pro~~erIy, ul the sarrie issue and amounT, in like Rind and specte.
is to be returned kdly iniaci
as a Special Deposit order ol the
Depositor) Benelic sty
Rube F Donor ‘Principal I Creditor
maurice )ohi’son fayne-ei
as a special deposit order in
money, This speca deposil do be used exclusively (or tue t’en
e~t of
Fayne-el. Maurice Johnson Trusit “. an Uinncorpouat~d
Divine Grantor Trust. flue deposits not to be comnPmi~j!ecu with
general assets of any bank
nor depositary I trustee I agent i
bailee / donee / debtor This daposil is uuol limited lu, lail includ
ing: dischage and set oIl. oi any and •all Outstanding liabilities
as accord and satisfaulmon Any and All Attorneys with a license
from Ho DM1 Assuc!auon are Oxpi;citiy prohmhited (toni achninis
trating
Payne-c
Maui ice Johnann Trust~
. property wohout
handwritten cuiisent (toni each and every trustee Tiller said At
torneys have ltuuuiislied their nationality and Principal (or whom’s
nieresi they are working (pursuant to Public Low
~ 503
10
I uslees n Øair’ truing Afl Rights Re
ived
No. 43545
717-24-31’fl-,.?o.
jy
CLASSWIEU
DEAD
LINE: GARAGE SALE
ADS AND AL OTHER
CLASSIrIFO LINE ADS
MUST 9E SUBMITTED
BEFORE 4:00 P.M.
ON TUESDAYS
TO APPEAR IN
THAT
FRIDAY’S
PAPER.
THE
DEADLINE
FQR
LE~AJ.
NOTICES
IS
10:0.9 A~M.. FRIDAY
-
mg W~1it.. $EFO9E
THE NOTICE IS TO AP
PgAR.
01)
METS
OVER S1OK
I
DEBT?
Be debt li-c in ~4-48
nionths P’ y a
auion of
what you r wo
A+ BBS
rated. Call Nat onal Debt
9elief 67? ?
‘
1692. it-i
19’ I 8-tin
.‘ M~-A’L:
VIAGRA
AND
ClAUS
USERS! 50 Pills SPECIAL
$99.00 FREE ShilipingI
IO0’o guaranteed, CALL
NOW! 855-685-5420 5,1
20-fin
STILL PAYING too much
for your MEDICATION?
Save UI) to 900 on RX re
fill! Order today and re
ceive free shipping on 1st
UI
r
Pl’escnplton
rr’
•~0fl
Legs N~ee
IN THF CIRCUIT COURT OF CROSS COUNTY. ARKANSAS
PROBATE DIVISION
IN THE MAJ Tr.R or THE ESTATE OF
HA7EI KENNON deceased
CASF NC’ l9Pfl ~020 56 3
NOitci
1-
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 11 of 43

Case 1.20-cr-00228-UNA
Document 33
Red 07120120
Page 11 of 55
EXHIBIT 2
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 12 of 43

orrIzENsaip OF IRE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, flO. 459
Grunts V.—Ternporarjj provisions.
ARt 1, Aliens who have acquired real estate, who have had chil
dren born to them in Mexico, or who have held any public office,
being those referred to in sections X, XI, and XIt of article 1 of this
law, are bound to declare within six months after the promulgation
of tins law, provided they have not done so previously, to the civil
authorities of their place of residence whether they wish to acquire
Mexican citizenship or to retain their own.
In the former case they
must immediately ask for their certificate of naturalization in the
form prescribed in article 19 of this law. If they fail to make the
deckration in question, they shall be considered Mexidans, except in
those cases where there has been au official declaration on this point.
An. 2. Colonists residiiig in the country, being those referred to
in the last sentence of arficle 28 of this law, shall declare in the
manner prescribed by the preceding article under what nationality
they wish to be classed, and if it should be the Mexican, they shall
also ask for their certificate of naturalization, as prescribed by the
preceding article.
An. 8. The Executive, in issuing the necessary regulations foi~ the
execution of this law shall be careful to give the proper directions
in order that the local authorities, so far as they are concerned, may
duly execute it.
Signed
JtA~ Jos~ B~z, Deputy, President.
Signed
Pnono SANci~zz CASTRo, Senator, President.
Signed
ROBERTO Nu5~z, Deputy, Secretary.
Signed]
Gu,DARDO GÔMEz, Senator, Secretary.
Wherefore, I order it to be printed, published, circulated, and duly
executed.
Given in the national palace of Mexico, May 28, 1880.
Ponrnuo Disz.
To Citizen Ios~AcIo MAurecAx,,
Secretary of Stote atzcZ of tite
Department of Pore~gn Relations.
In communicating it to you for your information and for the
nece~ary purposes, I assure you of my great consideration.
MAnIscn,.
MOROCCO.
Air. PhiZdp, chargé d’affaires, to Mr. Root, Secretary of State, ztuqMst
8, 1906.
AJaRIGAN LEGATLON,
Tangier, August 3, 1906.
Sm:
*
*
*
*
.5
*
There are, striefly speaking~ no Moroccan laws relating to citizeq
ship of Moorish sub5ects in Morocco.
The fundamental laws of this
non-Christian country are based entirely upon the Islaniitic code, no
part of which treats of the subject of citizenship.
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 13 of 43

Case 1:20-cr-00228-UNA
Document 33
Ft ed 07/20/20
Page 13 of 55
460 ovrxzzz~sgip or THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETO.
There are, however, numerous treaties and conventions between the
various Christian countries and the Moorish Empire, by means of
which citizenship in this country is deflned
but, as I understand,
from the above-acbowledged instructions, tbat it is not the desire
of the Department to call for a report upon such lines, I will there
fore confine these remarks to general conditions existing, winch may
possibly be of some use in connection with the information desired.
(1) Citizenship in Morocco may be said to be governed by the laws
pertaining to the same in other countries, with the exception that all
persons residing in Morocco who. can not prove foreign citizenship
or protection are considered ipso jure as Moorish su4ects.
(2 and 3) Moorish subjects lost their nationality only by becoming
naturalized in, or
protected by, another country having treaty re
lations with the Moorish Empire.
It was established by the Convention of Madrid, concluded July 3,
1880, as followst
ARTICLE XV.
‘Any subject of Morocco who has been naturalized in a foreign county.
end ~viao shell return to MoFocco. shall, after baying remained for
a length
of time equal to that which shall bare been regularly necessar3 for him to
obtain such naturalization, choose between entire submission to the laws of
the Empire and the obligation to quit Morocco, unless It shall be proved that
bis nataralization in a foreign country was obtained with the consent of the
Government of Morocco.
V’orelgn naturalization heretofore acquired by subjects of Morocco accord
ing to the rules established by the laws of each country, shall be continued
to hetni as regards all its effects without any restriction.
The above ruling has never yet been acted upon, and should this
at any time be contemplated seriously, a large number of naturalized
people, American and others, residing in Mbrocco, would be affected
thereby.
(4 and 5) Residence in foreign parts does not affect the nation
ality of Moorish subjects, and the Moorish Government has no
means of protecting its subjects permanently residing in other coun
tries, with the exception of a so-called Moorish consul at Gibraltar
and a Moorish agent at Cairo, Egypt.
( am, etc.,
H0rpMAN PHILIP.
(Enclosure. in despatch from Mr. Hill, minister to the Netherlands, Augirnt Si, 1906.J
(Tran.lntionj
LAW 0? DECEMBER 12, 1892, REGARDING NETHERLANDS C~ZEN5ztrp AND
RESiOENTSWP.
tO&clal Gatette No. 26O.~
-
In the name of Her Majesty Wilhehnina, by God’s grace Queen of
We, Emma, Queen Dowager, Regent of the Kingdom, mWce known
the Netherlands, Princess ot Orange-Nassau, etc.
to all whom it may concern, that:
Having taken into consideration that it is desrable to establish
some general provisions concerning Netherlands nationality in sub-
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 14 of 43

Case 1:20 cr-00228 UNA
Document 33
Filed 07/20/20
Page 14 of 55
EXHIBIT 3
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 15 of 43

UNITED STATES
OF
AMERICA
€onçjress~onat Record
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE
FIRST SESSION
CONGRESS
VOLUME 113—PART
12
JUNE 12, 1967, TO JUNE 20, 1967
(PAGES 15309 TO 16558)
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. WASHINGTON, 19~7
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 16 of 43

June 18, 1967
groups from other nations. This hi
partisan organization Is doing something
more than just talking about Interna
tional understanding—ic Is doing some
thing about It.
If mankind Is ever to abolish war from
the face of the earth, we flrst must
break down the barriers of mistrust and
suspicion
among
the
peoples
of the
world. There is no better way to accom
pUsh this than through just such pro
grams
as this one conducted by the
American Council of Young Political
Leaders.
These young people will be the lead
ers of the world In years to come, They
will be better leaders, more understand
ing and tolerant leaders. 1! they are able
to expand their knowledge of other na
tions, other peoples, and other political
systems.
This Is why, Mr. Speaker, I am so
pleased with the work being done by
the American Council of Young Politi
cal Leaders. They have my wholehearted
support in their program to further
world understanding,
THE
14TH
AMENDMmNT—EqlyaL
PROTECTION LAW OR TOOL OF
UstmpA’rION
Mr.
PRYOR.
Mr.
Speaker, I
ask
Unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Louisiana [Mr. R~aiox] may ex
tend his remarks at this point In the
RECORD and Include extraneous niatter,
The SP.EI*XCER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman
from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. RAZUCK. Mr. Speaker, arrogantly
Ignoring clearcut expressions in the con
stitution of the United States, the de
dared intent of Its drafters notwith
standing, our unelected Federal judges
read out prohibitions of the Constitution
of the United States by adopting the
fuzzy haze of the 14th amendment to
legislate their personal ideas, prejudices,
theories,
guilt
complexes,
alms,
and
whims.
Through the cooperation of intellec
tual educators, we have subjected our
selves to accept destructive
use
and
meaning of
words and
phrases.
We
blindly
accept
new
meanings
and
changed values to alter out’ traditional
thoughts.
We have tolerantly permitted the ha
bitual misuse of words to serve as a
vehicle to abandon our foundations and
goals. Thus, the present use and expan
sion of the 14th amendment Is a sham-,
serving as a crutch and hoodwink to pre
cipitate e. quad-legal approach for over
throw of the tender balances and pro
tections of limitation found In the Con
stitution.
But, Interestingly
enough, the 14th
amendment—whether ratified or not—.
was but the expression of emotional out
pouring of public sentiment following the
War Between the States.
Its obvious purpose and Intent was but
to free human beings from ownership as
a chattel by other humans. Its aim was
no more than to free the slaves.
~ our politically appointed Federal
judiciary proceeds down their chosen
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
path of cbaotlc departure from the peo
ples’ government by substituting their
personal law rationalized under the 14th
amendment, their actions and verbiage
brand them and their team as seen
slonists—rebels with pens instead of
guns—seeking to divide our Union,
They must be stopped. Public opinion
must be aroused, The Union must and
shall be preserved.
Mr. Spepicer, I ask to Include In the
REcoRo, following my remarks, House
Concurrent Resolution 208 of the Louisi
ana Legislature urging this Congress to
declare the 14th amendment illegal. Also,
I Include in the RECORD RU Informative
and well-annotated treatise on the il
legality of the 14th amendinent—the
play toy of our secessionist judges—
which lies
been
prepared
by
Judge
Loander It Perez, of Louisiana.
The material referred to follows;
E, (JON. Ru. aoe
A concurrent resolution to expose the Un
constitutionality of the 14th admendment
to the Constitution of the United States;
to Interpose the sovereignty of the State
of Louisiana against the execution of said
amendment in this State: to memorialize
the Congress of the United States to re
peal its joint resolution or July 25, ieee.
declaring that said amendment had been
ratified; end to provide for the distribu
tion of certified copies of this resolution
Whereas the purported 14th Amendment
to the United States Constitution was never
lawfully adopted In accordance with the ra
quirements of tIle United States Constitu
tion because eleven states or the Union were
doprived of their equal suffrage in the Sen
ate In violation of Article V, when eleven
southern states, Including Louisiana, were
excluded from deliberation and decision In
the adoption of the Joint Resolution pro
posing said 14th Amendment~ saidkesolution
was not presented to the President of the
United States in order that the same should
tae cZeot, as required by Article 1, SectIon.
7; the proposed amendment was not rati
fied by three-fourths of ~he states, but to
the contrary fifteen
states
of the
then
thirty-seven states of the Union rejected the
proposed
14th
Amendment
botween
the
dates of its submission to the states by the
Secretary of State on June
16, 1666 and
March
24,
1205,
thereby nullifying
said
Resolution and making it impossible for rati
fication
by
the coustltutionaliy required
three-fourths of Such states: said southern
states which were denied their equal suf
frage in the Senate had been reoognlscd by
proclamations OX the President of the United
States to have duly constituted governments
with all the powers which belong to free
states of the Union, and the Legislatures Of
seven of said southern states had ratified the
lath Amendment which would have failed
of ratification but for the ratification of said
seven southern states; and
Whereas the Reconstruction Acts of Con
grees unlawfully overthrew their existing
governments, removed their lawfully consti
tubed legislatures by military force and re
placed them with rump legIslat~~res whioli
carried out military ardors and protended
to ratify the 14th Amendment; and
Whereas In spit, of the fact that the Sec
retary of State In his first proclamation,
on July 20,
1565,
expressed doubt
as to
whether three-fourths of the required states
had ratified the 14th Amendment, Congress
nevertheless adopted a resolution oix July ~S,
1868, unlawfully declaring that three-fourths
or the states had ratified the 14th Amend
ment and dircoted the Secretary of State to
so proclaim, said Joint Resolution of Con.
gress and the resulting proclamation of the
15641’
Secretary of State Included the purported
ratifications of the military enforced rump
legislatures of ten southern states whose
lawful legislatures bad previously rejected
said 14th Axnondment, and also included
purported ratifications by the legislatures
or the States of Ohio and New Jersey although
they had withdrawn their legislative rati
fications several months previously, all of
which
proves
absolutely that
saId
14th
Amendment was not adopted in accordance
with the mandatory constitutional require
ments set forth in Article V of the Constitu—
tion and therefore the Constitution itself
strikes with nullity
the
purported.
14th
Amendment,
Now therefore be It resolved by the Legis
lature of Louisiana, the House of Representa
tives and the Senate concurring;
(1) That the Legislature go on record as
exposing the unconstitutionality of the 14th
.Smendment, and interposes the sovereignty
of the State of Louisiana against the execu
tion of saId 14th Amendment agaInst the
State of Louisiana and Its people;
(2) That the Legislature of Louisiana op
poses the use of the invalid 14th Amend
ment by the Federal courts to impose further
unlawful edicts and hardships eu its people:
(2) That the Congress of the United States
be memorialized by this Legislature to repeal
Iti unlawful Joint Resolution of July 28,
1068, declaring that three-fourths of the
states had ratified the 14th Amendment to
the United States Constitution;
(4) That the Legislatures of the other
states of the Union be memorIalized to give
serious study and tonaideratton to take sim
ilar cotton against the validity of the 14th
Amendment and to uphold and support the
Constitution of the United States which.
strikes said 14th Amendment with nullity:
and
(5) That copies of this Resolution, duly
certified, together with a copy of the treatise
on “The Unconstitutionality of the
14th
Amendment” by Judge L. K, Peres, be for
warded to the Governors and Secretaries of
State of each state In the Union, and to the
Secretaries of the United States Senate and
Rouse of Congress, arid to the Louisiana Con
gressional delegation, a copy hereof to be
published in the Congressional Record.
Vail. 51. Dnon,
Spealwr oj the louse o~ Reprssenfatlvas.
C, O.Arcccs~,
Lfsutcnant
Governor miS President
of this Senate.
Tnz lea AMsNors$rrr Xs UNcoNs’rn’v’rzoNAt.
The purported 14th Amendment to the
United States Constitution is and should be
held to be Ineffective, invalid, nun, void and
unconstitutional for the following reasonE
1. Thp Joint Resolution proposing
said
Amendment was not submitted to or adopted
by a constitutional Congress. Article I, Sec
tIon 3, and Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted
to the President for his approval. Article I,
Section?.
2. mc proposed 14th Amendment was re
jected by more than one-fourth of all the
States then in the Union, and It was never
ratified by three-fourths of all the States in
the Union. Article V.
I. THE VIICON$’tfltflEONAt, CoNoness
The U.S. Constitution provides:
Article I, Section 3. “The Senate of the
United States ehall be composed of two Sen
ators from each State
Article V provides: “No State, without its
consent, shall be deprived of its equal suf
frage in the Senate.”
The fact that 23 Senators had been unlaw
fully excluded from the U.S. Senate, in order
to secure a two-thirds vote for adoption of
the .Thint Resolution
proposing the
14th
Amendment Is shown by Resolutions of pro-
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 17 of 43

15642
test adopted by the following State Legiela.
turas:
The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution
of March 27, 1868, protested as follows:
“The said proposed amendment not having
yet received the assent of the three-fourths
of the states, which is necessary to make It
valid, tIne natural and constitutional right
of
this
state to withdrew its
assent
Is
undeniable ‘
“That It being necessary by the constitu
ton that every amendment to the same
should be proposed by two-thirds of both
houses of congress,
the authors of said
proposition, for the purpose of securing the
assent of the requisite majority, determined
to, and did, exclude from the said two houses
eighty representatives from eleven statss of
the union, upon the pretence that there were
no such states In the Union; but, finding
that two-thirds of the remainder of the said
houses could not be brought to assent to
the said proposition, they deliberately formed
and carried out the design of mutilating the
Integrity of the United States senate, and
without any pretext or justification, other
than the possession of the power, without tho
right, and in palpable violation of the consti
tution, ejected a member of their own body,
representing this state, and thus practically
denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in
the senate, and thereby nominally secured
the vote of two-thirds of the said houses.”’
The Alabama Legislature protested against
being deprived of representation in the Sen
ate of the U.B. Congress.’
The Texas Legislature by Resolution on
October 15, 1966, protested as fellows:
“The amendment to the Constitution pro
posed by this joint resolution as Article
~UV Is presented to the Legislature of Texas
for its action thereon, under Article V of that
Constitution. This Article V. providing the
node of making aniendmente to that instru
ment, contemplates the participation by all
the States through their representatives In
Congress, in proposing amendments. As rep
resentatives from nearly one-third of the
States were excluded from the Congress pro.
posing the amendments, the constitutional
requirement was not compiled with; It was
violated In letter and In spirit; and the pm’.
posing of these amendments to States which
were excluded from all participation in their
initiation in Congress, is a nullity.”5
The Arkansas Legislature, by Resolution on
December17, 1855. protested as follows:
“The Constitution authorized two-thirds
of both houses of Congress to propose amend
~ente~ and, as eleven States were excluded
from deliberation and decision upon the one
now submitted, the conclusion is Inevitable
that it IS not proposed by legal authority,
but In palpable violation of the Constitsi.
tiorn.”
The Georgia Legislature, by Resolution on
November 9,1866, protested as follows:
“Since the reorganization of the State gov
ernment, Georgia has elected Senators and
Representatives. So has every other State.
They have been arbitrarily refused edmission
to their seats, not on the ground that the
qualifications of the members elected did not
conform to the fourth paragraph, second sec
tion, first article of the Constitution, but
because their right of representation was
denied by a portion of the States having
equal but not greater rights than themselves.
They have in fact been forcibly excluded:
and, inasmuch as all legislative power grant
ed by the States to the Congress Is defined,
and this power of exclusion is not among the
powers expressly or by implication, the as.
senbiage, at the capitol, of representatives
from a portion of the States, to the exclusion
of the representatives of another portion,
‘New Jersey Acts, March 27, 1868.
‘Alabama House Journal 1860, pp. 210—213,
‘Texas Rouse Journal, 1866, p. 877.
‘Arkansas House Journal, 1856, p. 287.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
cannot be a constitutional Congress, when
the representation of each State forms an
Integral pert of the whole.
“This amendment is tendered to Georgia
for ratification, under that power in the Con
atitution wbioh authorizes two-thirds of the
Congress to propose amendments, We have
endeavored to establish that Georgia tad a
right, In the Srst place, as a part of the Con
gress, to act upon the question, ‘Shall these
amendments be proposed?’ Every other ex
cluded State had the same right.
“The first constitutional privilege has been
arbitrarily denied. Had these amendments
been submitted to a constitutional Congress,
they nevetwould have been proposed to the
States. Two-thirds of the whole Congress
never would have proposed to eleven States
voluntarily to reduce their political power In
the Union, and at the same time, disfran
obise the larger portion of the intellect, In
tegrity and patriotlem of eleven co-equal
States,”5
The Florida Legislature, by Resolution of
December 5. 1866, protested as follows:
“Let this alteration be made in the organic
system and some new and more startling de
mands may or may not be required by the
predominant party previous to allowing the
ten States now unlawfully and unconstitu
tionally deprived of their right of represen
tation to enter the Hails of the National
Legislature. Their right to representation Is
guaranteed by the Constitution of this coun
try and there Is no act, not even that of
rebellion, can deprive them of Its exercise,”
The South Carolina Legislature by Resolu
ton of November 27, 1866, protested as fol
lows:
“Eleven of the Southern States, including
South Carolina, are deprived of theIr repro—
sentation in Congress. Although their Sena
ton and Representatives have been duly
elected
and
have
presented
themselves
for the purpose of taking their seats, their
credentials have, In moat Instances, been laid
upon the table without being read, or have
been referred to a committee, who have
failed to make any report on the subject. Zn
short, Congress has refused to exercise its
Constitutional functions, and decide either
upon the election, the return, or the quali
fication of these selected by the States and
people to represent us. Some of the Senators
and
Representatives
from
the
Southern
States were prepared to take the test oath,
but even these have been persistently Ig
nored, and kept out of the seats to which
they were entitled under the Constitution
and laws,
“Hence this amendment has not been pro
posed by ‘two-thirds of both Rouses’ of a
legally constituted Congress, and is not, Con
stitutionaily or legitimately, before a single
Legislature for ratificti’
The North Carolina Legislature protested
by Resolution of December 6, 1866 as follows:
“The Federal Constitution declares, in Sub
stance, that Congress shall consist of a House
of Representatives, composed of members
apportioned among the respective States In
the ratio of their population, and of a Sen
ate, composed of two members from each
State. And In the Article whloh concerns
Amendments, it is expressly provided that
‘no State, without it consent, shall be de
prived of Its equal suffrage In tile Senate.’
The contemplated Amendment was not pro
posed to the States by a Congress thus con
stituted. At the tlnie of Its adoption, the
eleven seceding States were deprived of repre
sentation both in the Senate and House,
although they all, except the State of Texas.
had
Senators
and
Ropreaentatives
duly
elected and claimIng their privileges under
‘Georgia House Journal, November 9. 1866.
pp. 66—67.
‘Florida House Journal, 1866, p.75.
‘South Carolina House Journal, 1566, pp.
33 and 34.
Jt/.ne 18, 1967
the Constitution. In consequence cf this,
these States had no voice on the Important
question of proposing the Amendment. Had
they been allowed to give their votes, the
proposition would doubtless have failed to
command
the
required
two-thirds
ma
jority.
If the votes of these States are necessary to
a valid ratification of the Amendment, they
wore equally necessary on the question of
proposIng It to the States; for it would be
difficult, in the opinion of the Committee, to
show by what process In logic, men of Intelli
gence could arrive at a different conclusion.”’
U. ;onqt RESoLUTIoN ENZ~cflVS
Article L Section 7 provIdes that not only
every bill which shall have been passed by
the House of Representatives and the Senate
of the Unite4 States Congress, but that:
“Every order, resolution, or vote to which
the concurrence of the Senate and House of
Representatives may be necessary
(except
on a question of adjournment) shall be pre
sented to the President of the United States;
and before the same shall take effect shall
be approved by him, or being disapproved by
hun shall be repassed by two-third.s of the
Senate and House of Representatives, ac
cording to the rules and limitations pre
scribed In the case of a bill,”
The Joint ResolutIon proposing the 14th
Amendment’ was never presented to the
President of thIs United States for his ap
proval, as President Andrew Johnson stated
in his message on June 22, 1886?’ Therefore,
the Joint Resolution did not take effect.
Ut flOPOS~ AMENPMSN? NEvER RATIfIED BY
ThazE-rou’sTns ow rae s’rnr.e
1. Pretermltting the Ineffectiveness of said
resolution, as above, fifteen (15) States out
of the then thIrty-seven (3’?) States of the
Union rejected the proposed 14th Amend
ment between the date of its submission to
the States by tho Secretary of State on
June 16, 1866 and March 24, 1568, thereby
further nullifying said resolution and flak
lag it impossible for Its ratification by the
constitutionally required three-fourths of
such States, as shown by the rejections
thereof by the Legislatures of the following
states:
Texas rejected the 14th Amendment on
October 27, 1886P
Georgia rejected the 14th Amendment on
November 9, 1666.0
Florida rejeoted the 14th Amendment on
December 6, 1866?’
Alabama rejected the 14th Amendment on
December 7, 1855.”
North Carolina rejected the 14th Amend
ment on December14, 1866?
Arkansas rejected the 14th Amendment on
December 17, 1866,”
South Carolina rejected the 14th Amend
ment on December 20, 1856.”
Kentucky rejected the 14th Amendment on
January 8, 1867.”
‘North Carolina Senate Journal, 1866-n,
pp. 92 and 93.
‘14 Stat. 388 etc.
‘• Senate Journal. 39th Congress, 1st aessn.
p. 563, and House Journal p.689.
“House Journal 1865, pp. 578-684--’Senate
Journal 1886, p. 471.
“House Journal 1866, p. SB—Senate Jour-
sal 1856, p. 72,
‘5 House Journal 1856, p. 76—Senate Jour
nal 1866, p. 8.
“Rouse Journal 1856. pp. 210—213-—Senate
Journal 186G. p. 153.
“Rouse Journal 1866—1867, p. 183—Senate
Journal 1866—1867, p. 138.
‘5flouse Journal 1856, pp. 259-291--.Senate
Journal 1866, p. 282,
“House Journal 1866, p. 284—Senate Jour
nal 1868, p. 230.
‘5 House Journal 1867, p. 60—Senate Jour
nal 1667. p. 52,
Case 1:20 cr 00228 UNA
Document 33
Filed 07/20/20
Page 17 of 55
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 18 of 43

June 18, 1967
Virginia rejected the 14th Amendment on
January 9. 1867.W
Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment
on February 6, 1867Y
Delaware rejected the 14th Amendment on
February 7, 1861.~
Maryland rejected the 14th Amendment on
March 28, 1867.”
Mississippi rejected the 14th Amendment
on January 31, 1867.”
Ohio rejected the 14th Amendment on
January 16, 1868.”
New Jersey rejected the 14th Amendment
on March 24, 1888.”
There was no question that all of the
Southern states which rejected the
14th
Amendment had legally constituted govern
meats, were fully recognized by the federal
government, and were functioning as mem
her states of the Union at the time of their
rejection.
President Andrew Johnson, in his Veto
message of Martha, 186V5 pointed out that:
“It Is not denied that the States In ques
tion have each of them en actual govern
ment with eli the powers, executive, Judicial
and legislative, which properly belong to a
free State. They are organised like the other
States of the Union, and, like them, they
make,
satninhilter,
and
execute the laws
which concern their domestic affairs.”
If further proof were needed that these
States were operating under legally consti
tuted governments as member States in the
Union, the rati*catlon of the 18th Amend
ment by December 8, 1885 undoubtedly sup
plies this ofiicial proof. If the
Southern
States were not member States of the Union,
the 13th Amendment would not have been
submitted to their Legislatures for ratlftca
tion.
Z The 18th Amendment to the United
States Constitution was proposed by Joint
Resolution of Congress” and was approved
February 1, 1866 by President Abraham Lin
coln, as reqWred by Article I, Section Vof the
United States Constitution. The President’s
signature Is affixed to the Resolution.
The 18th Amendment was ratified by 3’?
states of the then 80 states of the Union.
Including the Southern States of Virginia,
Louisiana, Arkansas, South Carolina, Ala
bama, North Caroiina and Georgia. This Is
shown by the Proclamation of the Secretary
of State December 18, 1965.
Without the
votes of these 7 Southern State Legislatures
the lath Amendment would have failed.
There can be no doubt but that the ratifica
tion by these 7 Southern States of the 13th
Amendment again established the fact that
their Legislatures
and State governments
were duly and lawfully constituted and func
tioning as such under their State Constitu
tions.
3. Furthermore, on AprIl 2. 1866. President
Andrew Johnson Issued a proclamation that
“the insurrection which heretofore existed
In the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Vir
ginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama,
Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi and Florida
Is at an end, and is henceforth to be so re
garded.””
19flouse Journal 1866—1861, p. 10G~—Senate
Journal lace—lee?. p. 101.
~ McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194; An
nual Encyclopedia. p. 462.
fl House Journal 1867, p. 228—Senate Jour
nal 186?, p. 176.
“House
Journal
1867,
p.
1141—Senate
Journal 1867, p. 608.
“McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194.
t1liouse Journal 1868, pp. 44-50—-Senate
Journal 1865, pp. 38—86.
Minutes of the Assembly 1808, p. 743—
Senate Journal 1868, p. 856,
aouse Journal, Seth Congress, 2nd See
elon. p.668 etc.
“13 Stat. p. 667.
•18 Stat. p. 774.
“Presidential Proclamation No. 153, Con-
Document 33
Filed 07/20/20
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
On August
20,
1866, President Andrew
Johnson
issued
another
proclamation”
pointing out the fact that the Souse of Rep
resentatives end Senate had adopted identi
eat Resolutions on July 22nd U and July
25th, 1881,” that the Civil War foroed by
disunlonists of the Southern States, vine not
waged for the purpose of conquest or to
overthrow the rights and established insti
talons of those States, but to defend and
maintain the supremacy of the Constitution
and to preserve the Union with all equality
and rights of the several states unimpaired,
and that as soon as these objects are accom
plished, the war ought to cease. The Presi
dent’s proclamation on June 13, 1865, de
clared the insurrection In the State of Ten
nessee had been suppressed.” The Presi
dent’s proclamation on April 2, 1886.11 de
clared the Insurrection In the other South
ern States, except Texas, no longer existed.
On August 20, 1866.” the President pro
claimed that the Insurrection In the State of
Texas bad been completely ended; and his
proclamation continued: “the insurrection
which heretofore eoclsted In the State of
‘l’exes Is at an end, and Is to be henceforth
so regarded In that State, as in the other
States before named In which the said In
surrection was proclaimed to be at an end
by the aforesaid proclamation of the second
day of April. one thousand, eight hundred
and sixty-six.
“And I do further proclaim that the said
Insurrection is at an end, and that peace,
order, tranquility, end civil authority now
exist, In and throughout the whole of the
United States of America.”
4. When the State of Louisiana rejected
the 14th Amendment on February 6, 1807,
making the 10th state to have rejected the
same, or more than one-fourth of the total
Dumber of 36 states Of the Union as of that
date, thus leaving less than three-fourths of
the states possibly to ratify the same, the
Amendment failed of ratification in fact and
in law, and It could not have been revived
except by a new Joint Resolution of the
Senate
and
Rouse of Representatives in
accordance with Constitutional requirement.
6. Faced with the positive failure of intl.’
Session of the 14th Amendment, both Rouses
of Congress passed over the veto of the Presi
dent three Acts known ss Reoonstruction
Acts, between the dates of March 2 and
July 19, 1367, especIally the third of said
Acts, 15 Stat. p. 14 eta, designed Illegally
to remove with “Military forte” the lawfully
constituted State Legislatures of the
10
Southern States of Virginia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama,
Mississippi, Arkansas. Louisiana and Texas.
In President Andrew Johnson’s Veto message
on the Retonstruction Act of March 2, 1867,”
he pointed out these unconstitutlonallties:
“If ever the American citizen should be
left to the free exercise of his own judgment.
it is when he Is engaged In tile work of form..
Ing the fundamental law under which he is
to live. That work is his work, and it can
not properly be taken out of his hands. All
this legislation proceeds upon the contrary
Assumption that the people of each of these
States shall have no constitution, except such
as may be arbitrexarily dictated by Congress,
and formed under the restraint of military
rule. A plain statement of facts makes thie
evident.
eral Records of the United States, G.S.A.
National Archives and Records Service.
14 Stat, p. 814.
“House Journal, 87th Congress, let Sessn,
p. 128 etc.
“Senate Journal, 37th Congress, let Sessn.
p. 91 etc.
“13 Stat. ‘768.
14 Stat. p. au.
“ 14 Stat 814.
“House Journal, 89th Congress, 2nd Sessn.
p. 563 etc.
15643
“In all these States there are existing oon
stitutions, framed in the accustomed way by
the people. Congress, however, declares that
these constitutions are net ‘loyal and repub
lican,’ and requires the people to form them
anew. What, then, in the opinion of Con
gress, is necessary to make the constitution
of a Stats ‘loyal and republican?’ The original
act answers the question: ‘It Is universal
negro suffrage, a question which the federal
Constitution leaves exclusively to the States
themselves. All this legislative machinery of
martial law, military coercion, end political
disfranchisement is avowedly for that pur
pose and none other. The existing constitu
tions of the ten States conform to the ac
knowledged standards of loyalty and repub
licanism. Indeed, If there en degrees In re
publican forms of government, their constitu
tions are more republican now, than when
these States—4our of which were members
of the original thirteen—first became mem
bers of the Union.”
Zn President Andrew Johnson’s Veto me,
sage on the Reconstruction Act on July 10,
1867,” he pointed out various unconstitu
tionalltles as follows:
“The veto of the original bill of the 2d of
March was based on two distinct grounds.
the
interference of
Congress in matters
strictly appertaining to the reserved powers
of the States, and the establishment of znfli.
tory tribunals for the trial of citizens In time
of peace.
•
a
“A singular contradiction Is apparent here.
Congress declares these local State govern
ments to be illegal governments, sad then
provides That these iliegal governments shall
be carried on by federal officers, who are to
perform the very duties on its own officers
by this illegal State authority. It certainly
would be a novel spectacle If Congress should
attempt to carry on a legal State government
by the agency of Its own officers. It Is yet
more strange that Congress attempts to sus
tain and carry on an illegal State govern
ment by the same federal agency,
•
•
S
S
‘~Xt is now too late to say that these ten
political communities sre not States of this
Union. Declarations to the contrary made In
these three acts are contradicted again and
again by repeated acts of legislation enacted
by Congress from the year 1861 to the year
1887.
‘turing that period, while these States
were lxx actual rebellion, and eSter that re
bellion was brought to a close, They have
been agaIn and again recognized as States
of the Union. Representation has been appor
tioned to them as States. They have been di
vided into Judicial districts for the holding
of district and olrcult courts of the United
States, as States of the Union only can be
districted. The last act on this subject wee
passed July 23, 1866, by which every one of
these ten States wee arranged Into dIstricts
and circuits.
“They have been called upon by Congress
to act through their legislatures upon at
least two amendments to the Constitution of
the United States. As States they have rat!
fled one amendment, which required the
vote of twenty-seven States of the thirty-
six then composing the Union. When the
requisite twenty-seven votes were given in
favor of that amendment—seven of which
votes were given by seven of these ten
States—it was proclaimed to be a part of
the Constitution of the United States, and
slavery was declared no longer to esIat within
the United States or any place subject to
their jurisdiction. If these seven States were
tot legal States of the Union. it follows as
an Inevitable consequence that Sn some of
the States slavery yet exists. It does not exist
“40th Congress, 1st Ssssn. Rouse Journal
p. 232 etc.
Case 1:20-cr-00228-UNA
Page 18 of 55
—S
CXIII—986—-Part 12
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 19 of 43

15644
in these seven States, for they have abolished
it also In their State constitutions; but Ken
tucky not having done so, It would still re
main in that State. But, in truth, if this
assumption that these States have no legal
State governments be true, then the shell-
ton of slavery by these Illegal governments
binds no one, for Congress now denies to
these States the power to abolish slavery by
denying to them the power to elect a legal
State legislature, or to frame a constitution
for any purpose, even for such a purpose as
the abolition of slavery.
“As to the other constitutional amend
ment having reference to suffrage, It hap
pens that these States have not accepted
it. The consequence Is, that It has never been
proclaimed or understood, even by Congress,
to be a part of the Constitution of the United
States. The Senate of the United States has
repeatedly given its sanction to the ap
pointment of judges. distriot attorneys, and
marshals for every one of these States; yet.
if they axe not legal States, not one-of these
judges Is authorized to hold a court. So, too,
both houses of Congress have passed appro’
priation bills to pay all these judges, at
torneys, and officers of the United States for
exercising their functions In these States.
Again, In the machinery of the Internal rev
enue laws, all these States are districted,
not as ‘Territories,’ but as ‘States.’
“So much for continuous legislative recog
nition. The Instances cited, however, fall far
short of all that might
be
enumerated.
Executive recognition. as is well known, has
been frequent and unwavering. The came
may
be
said
as to judicial
recognition
through the Supreme Court of the United
State,,
a
a
“~t me these considerations are conclusive
of the unconstitutionalIty of this part of the
bill now before me, and I esxnestiy commend
their consideration to the deliberate judg
ment of Congress. [And now to the Court.J
“Within a period less than a year the legis
lation of Congress has attempted to strip the
executive department of the government of
some of its essential powers. The Constitu
tion, and the oath provided in It, devolve
upon the President tho power and duty to
see that the laws are faithfully executed.
The Constitution. In order to carry out this
power, gives him the choice of the agent.,
and makes them subject to his control and
supervision. But In the execution Of these
laws the constitutional obligation upon the
President remains, but the powers to exer~.
oise that constitutional duty is effectually
taken away. The military commander is, as
to the power of appointment, made to take
the place of Its President and the General
of the Army the place of the Senate; and any
attempt on the part of the President to assert
his own constitutional power may, under
pretence of law, be met by official Insubordi
nation. It is to be feared that these military
o~cers, looking to the authority given by
these laws rather than to the letter of the
Constitution, wili recognize no authority but
the commander of the district and the Gen
eral of the army.
“If there were no other objection than this
to this proposed legislation, it would be
sufficient”
No one can contend that the Reconstruc
tion Acts were ever upheld as being valid and
constitutional.
They were brought into question, but the
Courts either avoided decision or were pre
vented by Congress from finally adjudicating
upon their constitutIonalIty.
In Mississippi v. President Andrew John
son, (4 Wall. 475—502) • where the suit sought
to enjoin the President of the United State.
from enforcing provisions of the Reconstruc
ton Acts, the U.S. Supreme Court held that
the President cannot be enjoined because for
the Judicial Department of the government
to attempt to enforce the performance of
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
the duties by the President might be justly
characterized, in the language of Chief Sue-
i-Lee Marshall, as “an absurd and excessive
extravagance.” The Court further said that
If the Court granted the injunction against
enforcement of the Reconstruction Acts, and
if the President refused obedience, it is need.
less to observe that the Court Is without
power to enforce its process.
In a joint action, the stats. of Georgia
and Mississippi brought suit against the
President and the Secretary of war, (6 Wall.
50—78, 154 U.S. 554).
The Court said that:
“The hill then sets forth that the intent
end design of the Acts of Congress. as ap
parent on thUr face and by their terms, are
to overthrow and annul this existing state
government and to erect another and dif
ferent government in Its place, unauthor
ized by the Constitution and In defiance of
its guaranties; and that, in furtherance of
this intent end design, the defendants, the
Secretary of War, the General of the Army,
and Major-General Pope, acting under orders
of the President, are about catting in mc-
ton a portion of the army to take military
possession of the state, and threaten to sub
vert her government and subject her people
to military rule; that the state is holding
Inadequate means to resist the power and
force of the Executive Department of the
United States; and she therefore insists that
such protection can, and ought to be a~orded
by a decree or order of his court in the
premises.”
The applications for Injunction by these
two states to prohibit the Executive Depart.
msnt front carrying out the provisions of
the Reconstruction Acts directed to the over
throw of their government, Including this
dissolution of their state legislatures, were
denied on the grounds that the organization
of the government into three great depart
ments, the executive, legislative and judicial,
carried limitations of the powers of each by
the Constitution, This case when the same
way
as the
previous
case of Mississippi
against President Johnson and was dismissed
without adjudicating
upon the constitu.
tionaflty of the Reconstruction Acts.
In another case, en parts William a Mo
Cardle (7 Wall. 606-515), a petition for the
writ of habeas corpus for unlawful restraint
by military force of a citizen not in the
military service of the United States was
before the United States Supreme Court.
After the case we. argued and taken under
advisement, and before conference In re
gard to the decision to be made, Congress
passed an emergency Act, (Act March 27,
1568,
15 Stat. at I,. 44), vetoed by the
President and repassed over his veto, re’
pealing the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme
Court in such case. Accordingly, the Supreme
Court dismissed the appeal without passing
upon the constitutionality of the Recon
struction Acts, under which the non-military
citizen was held by the military without
benefit of writ of habeas corpus, In viola—
tlon of Section 9, Articie I of the U.S. Con
stitution whloh prohibits the suspension of
the writ of habeas corpus,
That Act of Congress placed the Recoxi.
struction Acts beyond judicial recourse and
avoided teats of constItutionality.
It is recorded that one of the Supreme
Court Justices, Grier, protested against the
action of the Court as follows:
“This case was fully argued in the begin
ning of this month. It Is a case which in
volves the liberty and rights, not only of
the appellant hut of- million’ of our fellow
citizene. The country and the parties bad
a right to expect that it would receive the
immediate
and
solemn
attention
of the
court. By the postponement of this case we
shall subject ourselves, whether justly or
unjustly, to the imputation that we have
evaded the performance of a duty imposed
June 18, 1967
on us by the Constitution, and waited for
Legislative interposition to supersede our
action, and relieve us from responsibIlity,
I sin not willing to be a partaker of the
eulogy or opprobrium that may follow. I
can only say
-
- I am ashamed that such
opprobrium should be cast upon the court
and that it cannot be refuted,”
The ten States were organized Into Military
Districts under the unconstitutional “Re
construction Acts.” their lawfully constituted
Legislature illegally were removed by “mili
tary force:’ and they were replaced by rump,
so-called Legislatures, seven of which carried
out military orders and pretended to ratify
the 14th Amendment, its follows:
Arkansas on AprIl 6, 1868;~
North Carolina on July 2,1858;”
Florida on Suns 9, 1868;”
Louisiana on July 9, 1868;”
South Carolina on July 9.1868:”
Alabama on July 18. 1865$’ and Georgia
on July21, 1668.”
6. Of the above 7 States whose Legislatures
were removed and replaced by rump, so-
called Legislatures, six (6) Legislatures of the
States of Louisiana, Arkansas, South (‘arc
lina, Alnbama, North Carolina and Georgia
had ratified the 13th Amendment, a. shown
by the Secretary of State’s Proclamation of
December 18. 1865, without which 6 States’
ratifications, tho 18th Amendment could not
and would not have been ratified because said
6 States made a total of 27 out of SB States
or exactly three-fourths of the number re
quired by Article V of the Constitution for
ratification.
Furthermore, governments of the States
of Louisiana and Arkansas had been re-estab
lished under a Proclamation Issued by Presi
dent Abraham Lincoln December 6, 1S68.”
The government of North Carolina had
been re-established under a Proclamation
issued by. President Andrew Johnson dated
May 29, 1865~’
The government of Georgia had been re
established under a proclamation Issued by
President Andrew Johnson dated June 17,
1805.”
The government of Alabam~ had been re
established under a Proclamation issued by
President Andrew Johnson dated June 21,
1865.”
The government of South Carolina had
been re-established under a Proclamation
issued by PresIdent Androw Johnson dated
June 30, 1865.°
These three “Reconstruction Acts”5 under
whioh the above State Legislatures were ii-
legally removed and unlawful rump or pup
pet aG-called Legislatures were substituted
In a mock eUort to ratify the 14th Amend
ment, were unconstitutional, null and void.
ab initlo, and ali acts done thereunder were
also null and void, Including the purported
ratification of the 14th Amendment by said
6 Southern puppet State Legislatures of
McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 53.
“Rouse Journal 1868, p. 15, Senate Journal
1808, p. 16.
“House Journal 1568. p. 9, Senate Journal
1866. p. 8,
•tena
Journal 1868, p. 21.
“Rouse Journal 1BCB, p. 50, Senate Jour
nal 1868, p. 12.
“Senate
Journal,
40th
Congress,
2nd
Sessn, p. 725,
“House Journal, 1868, p. 50.
~5 Vol. I, pp. 288—505; Vol. II, pp.
1429—
14.48—”The
Federal
and
State
Constitu
tions,” etc., compiled under Act of Con
gress on June
80,
1906, Francis Newton
Thorpe, Waehlngton Government Printing
Office (1906).
‘5Same, Thorpe, Vol. V. pp, W799—2800.
“Same. Thorpe, Vol. U, pp. 809422.
0Same, Thorpe, Vol. I, pp. 116-132.
“Same, Thorpe, Vol. VI. pp. 8369-3281,
° 14 Stat. p. 428, etc. 15 Stat. p. 14, etc.
Case 1 20-cr-00228 UNA
Document 33
Piled 07/20/20
Page 19 of 55
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 20 of 43

June is, 1967
Arkansas, North Carolina. Louisiana, South
Carolina, Alabama and Georgia.
Those ReconstructIon Acts of Congress and
all sate and things unlawfully done there
under were in violation of Article XV, Sec
tIon 4 of the United States Constitution,
which required the United States to guar
ants. every State In the Union a republi
can form of government. They violated Arti
cle I, Section 2, and Article V of the Con
stitution, which entitled every State in the
Union to two Senators, because under pro
visions of these unlawful Acts of Congress,
10 States were deprived of having two Sen
ators, or equal suffrage In the Senate.
7, The Secretary of State expressed doubt
as to whether three-founts of the required
states had ratified the 14th Amendment, as
shown by lila Proclamation of July 20, 1808.”
Promptly on July 21. 1868. a Joint Resolu’
tion ~ was adopted by the Senate and House
of
Representatives
declaring that
three-
fourths of the several States of the Union bad
ratified the 14th Amendment. That resolu
tion, however. Included purported ratifica
tions by the unlawful puppet Legislatures of
S States, Arkansas, North Carolina, Louisiana.
South Carolina and Alabama, which had pro
viously rejected the 14th Amendment by ac.
ton of their lawfully constituted Legisla
turn, as above shown. This Joint Resolution
assumed to perform the function of the Sec
retary of State in whom Congress, by Act of
Apr11 20, 1618, had vested the function of
Issuing such proclamation declaring the rati
fication of Constitutional Amendments,
The Secretary of State bowed to the action
of Congress and issued his Proclamation of
July 29. 1868.” in which he stated that he
was acting under authority of the Act of
April 20, 1018, but pursuant to said Resolu
tion of July 21, 1868. Re listed three-fourths
or so of the then 2’? states as having ratified
the 14th Amendment, including the pur
ported ratification of the unlawful puppet
Legislatures of the States of Arkansas, North
Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina end Ala
bama. Without .~Id 5 unlawful purported
ratifications there would have been only 25
states left to ratify out of 37 when a mini
mum of 28 states was required for ratification
by three-fourths Of the States of the Union.
The Joint Resolution of Congress and the
resulting Proclamation of the Secretary of
State also included purported ratifications by
the States of Ohio and New Jersey, although
tbe Proclamation reeognlzed the fact that
the Legislatures of said states, several months
previously, had withdrawn their ratifications
and effectively rejected the 14th Amendment
in January, 1068, and Apr11, 1860.
Therefore, deducting these two states from
the
purported
ratifications
of
the
14th
Amendment, only 23 State ratifications at
most could be claimed; whereas the ratifica
tion of 28 States, or three-fourths of 27
States In the Union. were required to ratify
the 14th Amendment.
From all of the above documented historic
facts, It is Inescapable that the 14th Amend
ment never was validly adcpted as an article
of the Constitution, that It has no legal
effect, and it should be declared by the
Courts to be unconstitutional, and therefore
null, void and of no effect.
TIlE cowsnrutzou stamra TIW 14W AMEND
MENT wrrs NULLrfl
The defenders of the 14th Amendment
contend that the U.S. Supreme Court has
finally decided upon Its validity. Such 1. not
the case,
Ia what is considered the leading case,
Coleman v. Miller. 307 U.S. 448, 59 S. Ct. 912.
the U.S. Supreme Court did not uphold the
validity of the 14th Amendment.
‘~ 18 Stat. p. 700,
“House Journal, 40th Congress, 2nd Sessn.
p. 1126 etc.
“15 Stat. p. 105,
Document 33
Filed 07120120
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
Zn that case, the Court brushed aside
constitutional questions as though they did
not exist. For instance, the Court made the
statement that:
“The legislatures of Georgia, North Caro
lina and South Carolnia had rejected the
amendment in November and December,
1066. New government. were erected In those
States (and In others) under the direction
of Congress. The new legislatures ratified
the amendment, that of North Carolina on
July 4,
1868, that of South Carolina on
July 9, 1860, and that of Georgia on July 21,
1868.”
And the Oourt gave no consideration to the
fact that Georgia, North Carolina and South
Carolina were three of the original states of
the Union with valid end existing constitu
tions on an equal footing with the other
original states and those later admitted Into
the Union.
What constitutional right did Congress
have to remove those state governments and
their legislatures under unlawful military
power set up by the unconstItutional “Reeon
etruction Acts,” which had for their purpose.
the destruction and removal of these legal
state governments and the nullification of
their Constitutions?
‘I’he.fact that these three states and seven
other Southern States had existing Conatitu..
tions, were recognized as states of the Union,
again and again; had been divided Into judi
cial districts for holding theIr district and
circuit courts of the United States; bad been
called upon by Congress to act through their
legislatures upon two Amendments, the 13th
and 14th, and by their ratifications had ac
tually made possible the adoption of the 13th
Amendment; as well as their state govern
ments
having
been
re-established
under
Presidential
Proclamations,
as
shown
by
President Andrew Johnson’s Veto message
and proclamations, were all brushed aside
by the Court In Coleman by the statement
that:
‘74ew governments
were erected In
those States (end In others) under the di
rection of Congress,~’ and that these new leg
islatures ratified the Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court overlooked that
it previously had hold that at no time were
these Southern States out of the Union.
White v. Wart, 1871, 13 Wall. 648, 654.
Zn Coleman, the Court did not adjudicate
upon the Invalidity of the Acts of Congress
which sot aside those state Constitutions end
abolished their state legisiatures,—the Court
simply referred to the fact that their legally
constituted legislatures had rejected the 14th
Amendment and that the “new legislatures”
had ratified the Amendment.
The Court overlooked the fact, too, that
the State of Virginia was also one of the
original states with its Constitution and Leg
islature In full operation under It. civil
government at the time.
The Court also Ignored the fact that the
other six Southern States, which were given
the same treatment by Congress under the
unconstitutional “Reconstruction Acts~’, all
had legal constitutions and a republican
form of government In each state, as was
recognized by Congress by its admissIon of
those states into the Union. The Ccurt cer
tainly must take judicial cogninuca of the
fact that before a new state Is admitted by
Congress Into the Unicn, Congress enaots an
Enabling Act to enable the Inhabitants of
the territory to adopt a Constitution to set
up a republican form of government as a
condition precedent to the admission of the
state into the Union, and upon approval of
such Constitution, Congress then passes the
Act of Admission of such state.
All thi, was Ignored and brushed aside
by the Court in the Coleman case. However.
in Coleman the Court inadvertently said
this:
“Whenever official notice Is received at the
Department of State that any amendment
proposed to the Constitution of the United
15645
States has been adopted, acccrding to the
provisions of the Constitution. the Secretary
of State shall forthwIth cause the amend
ment to be published, with his certificate.
specifying the States by which the same may
have been adopted, and that the same has
become valid, to all intents and purposes, as
a part of the Constitution of the United
States.”
Th Hawke V. Smith, 1920, 253 U.S. 221. 40B.
Ct. 227, the U.S. Supreme Court unmistakably
held;
“The fifth article Is a grant of authority
by the people to Congress. The determina
tion of the method of ratificatIon Is the
exercise
of
a national power specifically
granted by the Constitution; that power Is
conferred upon Congress, end Is limited to
two methods, by action of the Legislatures
of three-fourths of the states, or conven
tions In a like number of states. Dodge v.
Woolsey, 15 How. 331, 348, 18 I.. Ed. (Di. The
framers of the Constitution might
have
adopted
a
different method. Ratification
might have been left to a vote of the people.
or to some authority of government other
than that selected. The language of the arti
cle Is plain, and admits of no doubt in its
Int.repreiatton. It
Is not the function of
courts or legislative bodies, national or state,
to alter the method which the Constitution
has fixed.”
We submit that In none of the cases, In
which the Court avoided the constitutional
issues involved In the composition of the
Congress which adopted the Joint Resolution
for the 14th Amendment, did the Court pass
upon the constItutIonalIty of the Congress
which purported to adopt the Joint Resolu
tion for the 14th Amendment, with SO Rep
resentatIves
and
23
Senators,
In
effect.
forcibly ejected or denied their seats and
their votes on the Joint Resolution propos
ing the Amendment, Iii order to pass the
same by a two-thirds vote, as pointed out in
the New Jersey Legislature Resolution on
March 37, 1868.
The constitutional requirements sot forth
In Article V of the Constitution permit the
Congress to propose amendments only when
ever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it
necessary,—t≥mt
Is,
two-thirds
of
both
houses as then constituted without forcible
ejections.
Such a fragmentary Congress also violated
the constitutional requirements of Article V
that no state, without its consent, shall be
deprived of Its equai suffrage In the Senate.
There Is no such thing as giving life to an
amendment illegally proposed or never legal
ly ratified by three-fourths of the states.
There is no such thing as amendment by
inches; no such thing as amendment by
waiver; no such thing as amendment by ac
quiescence: and no such thing as amend
ment by any other means whatsoever except
the means specified in Article V of the Con
stitution itself.
It does not suffice to say that there have
been hundreds of cases decided under the
14th Amendmsnt to supply the constitutional
deficiencies In Its proposal or ratification as
required by Article V. If hundreds of litigants
did not question the validity of the 14th
Amendment, or questioned the same per
functorily without submitting documentary
proof of the facts of record which made Its
purported adoption unconstitutional, their
failure cannot change the Constitution for
the millions in America. The same thing Is
true of laches; tile same thing Is true of
acquiescence; the same thing is true of iii
considered court decisions.
To ascribe constitutional life to an alleged
amendment which never came into being
according to specific methods laid down In
Article V cannot be done without doing vio
lence to Article V Itself. This Is true, because
the only questIon open to
the courts is
whether the alleged 14th Amendment be
came a part of the Constitution through a
Case 1:20-cr-00228-UNA
Page 20 of 55
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 21 of 43

15646
method required by Article V. Anything be
yond that which a court is called upon to
hold in order to validate an amendment,
would be equivalent to writing Into Article V
another mode of the amendment which has
never been authorized by the people of the
United States.
On this point, therefore, the question Is,
was the 14th Amendmcrit proposed and rati
fied in accordant., with Article U?
In answering this question, It is of Do real
moment that decisions have been rendered
in which the parties did Dot contest or sub
mit proper evidence, or the Court assumed
that there was a 14th Amendment. If a stat
ute never in fact passed by Congress, through
some error of admInistration and printing
got Into the published reports of the stat
utes, and if under such supposed statute
courts had levied punishment upon a num
ber of persons charged under it. and if the
error in the published volume was discovered
and the fact became known that no such
statute had ever passed In Congress, it is un
thinkable that the Courts would continue to
administer punishment In similar case., on
a non-existent statute because prior decisions
had done so. If that be true as to a statute
We Deed only rcallze the greater truth when
the principle is applied to the solemn ques
tion of the contents of the Constitution.
While the defects in the method of propo.
lug and the subsequent method of comput
ing “ratlftestion’
is briefed
elsewhere, it
ehould be noted that the failure to comply
with Article V began with the first action by
Congress. ‘its very Congress which proposed
the alleged 14th Amendment under the first
part of Article V was Itself, at that very time,
violating the last part as well ss the first
part of Article V of the Constitution. We
shall see how this was done.
Tbete is one, and only one, provision of
the Constitution of the United States which
Is forever Immutable—which oat never be
changed or expunged. The Courts cannot
alter It; the executives cannot change it; the
Congress cannot change It; the States them
selves—even all the States in perfect con—
cert—catnot amend it in any manner what
sonar, whether they act through conven
tions called for the purpose or through their
legislatures. Not even the unanimous vote of
every voter in the United States could amend
this provision. It Is a perpetual fixture In
the Constitution, so perpetual and so fixed
that if the people of the United States de
sired to change or exclude it, they would be
compelled to abolish the Constitution and
start afresh.
The unalterable provision Is this: “that
no State, without ~ts consent, shall be de
prived of It. equal suffrage in the Senate.”
A state, by its own consent, may waive
this r~ght of equal suffrage, but that is the
only legal method by which a failure to ac
cord this Immutable right of equal suffrage
In the Senate can be justified. Certainly not
by forcible ejection and denial by a major
ity in Congress, as was done for the adoption
of the Joint Resolution for the 14th Amend
ment.
Statements by the Court In the Coleman
case that
Congress was left in complete
control of the mandatory process, and there
fore It was a political affair for Congress to
decide if an amendment had been ratified,
does not square with Article V of the Con
stitution which shows no Intention to leave
Congress In charge of deciding whether there
has been a ratification. Even a constitution
ally recognized Congress is given but one
volition In Article V3 that is, to vote whether
to propose all Amendment on its own Initia
tive. The remaining stops by Congress are
mandatory, if two-thirds of both houses shall
deem it necessary. Congress shall propose
amendments: if the Legislatures of two-
thirds of ths States make application, Con
gress shall call a convention. For the Court
to give Congress any power beyond that to be
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
found In Article V Is to write the new mate
rial Into Artiole V.
it would be Inconceivable that the Con
gress or the United States could propose,
compel submission to. and then give life
to an Invalid emendment by resolving that
its effort had succeeded—regardless of com
pliance with the positive provisions or Ar
ticle ‘V,
ft should need no further citations to
sustain tIle proposition that neither the
Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amend
ment nor its ratification by the required
three-fourths or the States in the Union
were in compliance with tJie requirements
of Article V of the Constitution,
When the mandatory provisIons of tIle
Constitution are violated, the Constitution
Itself strikes with nullity the Act that did
violence to its provisions, Thus, the Consti
tution strikes with nullity the purported
14th Amendment.
The Courts, bound by oath to aupport the
Constitution, should review all of the cvi
deuce herein submitted and measure the
facts proving violations of the mandatory
provisions of the Constitution with Article
V~ and finally render judgment declaring
siiid purported Amendment never to have
been adopted as required by the Constitu
tion.
The Constitution maltes it the sworn duty
of the judges to uphold the Constitution
which strikes with nullity the 14th Amend
ment.
And, as Chief Justice Marshall pointed out
for a unanImous Court in Matbury v. Madison
(I Cranch 186 0 179):
“The framers of the constitution contem
plated the Instrument as a rule for the gov
ernment of courts, as well as of the leglala
ture,”
5
0~
C
“Why does a judge swear to dlscI~erge his
duties agreeably to the constitution of the
United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government?”
•
4
5
5
5
“If such be the real state of things, taint
is worse thou solemn mockery, To prescribe,
or to take this oath, becomes
equally a
Crime.”
•
5
0
*
a
“Thus, the particular phraseology of the
constitution of the United States confirms
and strengthens the principle, supposed to
be essential to all written constitutions
•
courts, as well as other departments, are
bound by that Instrument.”
The federal court. actually refuse to hear
argument on the invalidity
of the 14th
Amendment, even when the issue is pre
sented squarely by the pleadings and the evi
dence as above.
Only an aroused public sentiment in favor
of preserving the Constitution and our Ill
stituttons and freedoms under constitutional
government, end the future security of our
county,
will
break
the
political
barrier
which now prevents judicial consideration
of the unconstitutionality of the 14th amend
ment.
THE t.flDEAST CRISIS—NOT BACK
WARD
TO
BELLIOBRENOY
BUT
FORWARD TO PEACE
Mr.
PRYOR,
Mr.
Speaker, I
ask
unanimous consent that the gentleman
front New York EMr. Tznzza) may ex
tend his remarks at this point In the
Escoan and include extraneous matter,
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Es there
objection to the request of the gentleman
from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. TENZER.
Mr. Speaker, the dis
tinguished Foreign Minister of the State
June 18, 1967
of Israel, Abba Eban, in his address to
the United Nations Security Council on
June 6, 1967, set ,the theme for a lasting
peace in the Middle East so much, de
sired by all the peace-loving nations of
the world.
His
address
was entitled.
“Not Backward to Belligerency but For
ward to Peace,”
On June 7, 1967, following the first
United Nations resolution coiling for a
cease-fire in the Middle East, I stated to
a distinguished group of Americans who
visited me in Washington as follows:
I deem it most imperative that the terms
of the agreement to follow the cease fire
provide effective guarantees, to the end that
permanent peace may be established In the
Middle East,
The interests of world peace Would best
be served If tIle terms provide:
1. Pot recognitIon of the validity of the
sovereignty of the State of Israel by the
VAR. and other Arab states.
2. A teaifinnatian that the Gulf of Aqaba
Is an international waterway and will re
main open for free passage to shipping ox all
nations through the Straits of Tiran.
3. AD opening of the Suez Canal to ship
ping of afl nations.
4. An ending of terrorism and border raids
so that Israel may carry out Its desire to live
in peace with its neighbors.
5. yor direct negotiations between Israel
and her Arab nelghbore for the resolution
or other pending issues.
Indeed, it is within the province of the
sovereign State of Israel to speak Its
mind on the terms of the agreement to
follow the cease-fire—-the terms which In
its
view
will
best insure
permaswnt
peace in the Middle East, We on the
other hand take the opportunity to make
suggest1on~ whioh in our opinion will
best secure the peace of the world—
thereby also sekvlng the best Interests
of the United States,
An elaboration of the five points sug
gested on June 7, 1966, is accordingly
in order.
x. was sTs?z or ISRAEl, A SOVZatZQZ( NarioN
The State of Israel Is a member of the
United Nations—a full-fledged member
of the family of nations. Though the In
tegrity of her borders were guaranteed
by the major powers—three times in 20
years—the State of Israel was obliged
to go to war to put a stop to the viola
tion of her boundary lJnea,
It is therefore basic to any plan for
permanent peace In the Middle East that
the sovereignty of the State of Israel be
recognized by her neighbors, This fact
cannot be questioned—this truth Is and
should not be negotiable because Its un
port was underlined by the events of the
past 10 days.
The foundation for a pel’manent peace
In the Middle East must be the absolute
and unqualified recognition by the ,Axab
States of the right of the State of Israel
to exist as a sovereign state among other
sov.sreign states. When this foundationis
laid, then Israel and her Arab neigh
bors can, tllro~igh direct negotiations,
begIn to build the structure leading to
permanent peace,
Xi, SThAfl OF TIRArl AN iIfl’ERNATIONAt
wAl’nwAr
Since 1950, Egypt hag repeatedly given
assurances
that
the
Strait
of Titan
would remain open for “Innocent passage
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 22 of 43

Case 1:20 cr-00228 UNA
Document 33
Filed 07/20/20
Page 22 of 55
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 23 of 43

Case 1:20 cr-00228-UNA
Document 33
Filed 07/20/20
Page 23 of 55
PUBLIC LAW 97-116—DEC 29, 1981
95 STAT. 1611
Public Law 97-116
97th Congress
An Act
Th amend the immigration and Netloneilty Act and for other purposes
& it noced t~’ the Senate anti House o~Representatives of the
United Staks.af4rnedca in Copigina .assembla4 Thai (a) this Act 1mi~igr*n and
may be cited as the “hnmigrstion and.NaUoflhii~ At Amendments
of1981
1981
(b)Except asapeciflca11~r provided ln:thls Ac% whenever In this Act atj~c nez note.
an amend
tor repealisixpreesed aS an amendment to~ or repØal
of, a proyiel*D, the reference shall be deemed to be made to the
Immigration and NationalityAct.
Sac. 2. (a) Subsection (axiS) of sectIon 101 (8 U.S.C. 1101) is
amended—
(1) by striking out ‘institptioa of learning or other recognized
plu’iflsnPh(P)aRdinaertlnginfleuthereof
‘college, univemiI~y, :semm~i conaervatory~ aademic high
schooi~ elementarysohool, or other academic Institution or In a
ian~uage.t~iniiigprogfl*&’aM
% by adding after subparagraph (L) the following new
subparagraph:
an aljen having a residence in a,foreign country wbick
helias no Intentlqnofabandoningwho seeks to enterthe United
Stat~ teniporaiily and solely for thepurpose. of.pursuing a ftIU
course ofstudy at an established vocational or other ráognized
nonacademic institution (other than in
.
language trnlning
program) in the unlted~ S
ularly da%nAted by him
nudEapproved by the.Attorney GeneraL after cénsukation. with
the Secretary ofEducation, which institutIoi~shall have agreed
to reportto theAttorney General thflnnination of attendance
p1 each nonmunlgrant nonflI~znzc student and if any such
initution failh to make zepotta promptly the approval shall be
withdrawn, and 61) the alien spouse and minor childrffii of any
such alien If .ac~rnpøn ng him oi~ follOwing ~ojt hI&.
0,) Sul*ection (b) of such section. is amended by striking out
uTourtee&e lnsub~ragrapbs®and.(F~ and inserting in lieã thereof
sixteen.
(c) Subaection.Ø ofsuchsectloflamended—
(1) by stalking outparagraph (2) aid
(2) by striking out ‘~paflgn pbS (9), (10), and (28) of section
212(a)’ In paragraph (3) and inwerting in lieu thereof “para
graphs (9) and (10) pf sectiOn 212(a) and paragraph. (23) of such
section (except as sob paragraph relates to a sifl~le offense of
simpleposseeaion ofSO gramsoflns dfmarlhuanay.
SEc. 8. SectIon .04 (8 U.S.C. 1154) .i~ amended by striking out
subsection. 44) and by thedesignatlng subsection (e) as subsection 44)
and the subsection (P. whIch was renumbered by sectionS of Public
Law 95-417, a subsectioxt(e).
928142. ~i7.
Sac. 4. SectIon 212(SU.S.C.1182)is amended—
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 24 of 43

95 STAt 1612
PUBLIt) LAW 97_i:16_DEQ 29, 1981~
(1) byinserting “an4 who seek admission wit3*i five years of
the date of. such deportation or r~mova!,f’ in Eubsectjo~z(aX17)..
àftei “section.242(b),”;.
-
(2) by strik1a~.out the aedon&ntenpe of paragraph (6) of
•
iubaectionM);end
•
(3ybyeti~ik~out.Yparagrapb&(9),~O),:or (l~ of~thisa&tiàW’
in subøection (h)apdniaer~hxg in hewtheteo “paragraphs (9),
(1O),ot (12) ØfsU~cctIon(ai&pØagraph.:(2)ofsüchsubsectzbn
-~ ::.
as such peragtaphtelatestoajin~]e:o5etfsmple.poeaasioE
‘of.3Oflamaot1~egofmarihftan&’.
.:
Sic 5 (à)(1) SectIon 212 (8 USC 1182) is amended by striking out
the semicolon at the end of pangraph (82) of subsection (a) ad
insert&nginlieuthereOfal?eiiod and-the-fob
.
oftiusparagraph anallenwhøja apaddate ofamedical schoolgail
be considered to clays pes~ed. p~rta Ian&R q~$hq NatipS Boa
of
Medical Pnmlners examinatEu if the alien ~was fully and jerma
nently licensed frpracti~drn~dicinein a State on Januae9, 197$,.
añd.waapractlciñgme4cineinaSateo~.t~at4aw”.
(2)Su~ection (jX1XB)ofsuchsections amended byntbking out the
semicolon at the end theztof and .ineertin3 in lieu thereof a period
and the following ‘Pot tl~e.pw,poeee ofthis subparagraph, a alien
who ~a a graduate of.a zñedlcal school shall be conaide~ed to have
paeaed.partø La4-flofl~onl.fl4.of-xa~jhie~
examination if the alien ~as fully and permanently licensed to
p.rc~adicin~ in a~$tate op Jgnuaq 9~ 1978, ad was prapticing
medlcznehta~tateop thatdate ~‘.
B USC 1182 note.
(3) &ctj~jj .6O2,of4~Ø Irealt~ PrOf
in&Educàtional Asiistance
Act f ~~T6 Wüb1lcj~* 94~484% iddedhy iedtiôn 807(4)(8)of-PãbUc
S USC 110111101 law 95-88, is amended by striking rntt aubeections (a) and (b)
~eg~B1~OLa
W)S~zkeectpfrQ)ofaeetjori212isameuded’~,-
(U.b~ i~~t’~ foUo~tafteiu1educaUo~. or t~ñi’am”
in paragraph(1)ln thematt~r beibre subparagraph (A),
(2) by strikpig cut “Uncludinq any extension of the duration
4hereoftmdezsnbj*ragtaph(D)) ¶flpatagraph(1XC);--
(Sfly stdking oi~t .Ir
amaôñer Of Education” atd”Secre
tary of BeaNi, Education, and Welfare” each place it açipeare
and •iiisex’~ing la lieu theteof “Sectetaryof Education
and
~(4)bystnkmg~oütthösemo1onãtthaèndofaiibparagraph(A)
and “, aM” a~the end of subparagraph (0) end inserting in lieu
thereofapened in eacb.caae;.
?dedica
(5) by ameoding subparagtaph(D). of paragraph (V to read as
educaUon.
follows;
.,
.
.
••.•
.~
“D)fleduratjoaoftheàljen’s participationiii the prograit4
.gtadua~medibaj edit
on o
‘Jng for which the-alien is
orning to theUnited. States ~alimiiedtote
,ae
• required to complete sudh~rogram, sad erminedhy ~heThrec~
tor of the International Communication Agency at the time of
the alien%antr. -into the United Stat ~,,basdd on criteria which
are establlshedjn-ordination with the Secretary ofHealth:and
Human Servfls at4which take into consideration the published
requirements of the medical s~eoialty bOard wl~$cli administers
such education
h~pr~n~exce$$hat~
“(1) such duration is fUrthez~ liii ited.tô se~eiflearä unless
the alien has demonstrated to the satisfaction ofthe Digector
that the country to which the alien will ret~nn at the end.of
such specinlI~’ education or training has an exceptional h~ed
br an Individual trained in sLich specialty, and
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 25 of 43

PUBLIC LAW :97_I16~.._))Ea ~, 1981
95 STAT. 1618
“(li;thnenmy, Snceandhotl~i~i1an$wo3~eara.ai~er
the date the alien eutarathe United States as an exchange
visitor or ec4uires excbange visitor status, change the glien a
designated urogram of graduate medical education or train-
ifthe Director a~prayee thechange andifs commitment
and wntten assurance with z~epect to the ahen’rnew pro-
rem have been provided in accordance with subparagra~th
~
.~,....
W) tie
oving new
Aifldavft,
furñifihes the Attorney General each year with
awiffidavitK(in iuch1ofti art
Jfl~er$~• shall pre
scribe) that attests thatthe alien (i) is in goad standing in the
program bfgraduate medical education ot training urwiuch the
ahen’m partnpaung end (twill.return to the country of his
nationality or last residence upon completion ofthe education ct
trainingfotwhlcWiecmnietotheiliilteclstated
(IXATh4z skthn~ out “(n)” m paragraph (flB) and inserting in
heutheNo$°Cnxv
~.,
:.,..~‘•
.
mbflAertb;.ib
h (1)
flY’~bef~? 9zás co~mpea
teUet’”(Wr.b*reY’Wflfleable to.ad4p%and,i~QW’~before
(0) byl~
2~$~0~0u1b
81~, 1981” In paragraph (2XA)
urfl .4in~iMiflereof!VeceI*r3t4988 ~j•~’~
(Dl by. stnidbg out
d;B)~pf.~aragmpfrU)~ n,paragraph
(2XA) and inserting in lieu thereof ~‘and WXilXI) of paragraph
~kby~naertinwafier “n~’ inparagraph (2XA) thefollownig “U)
the Secretary oflIea1ti~ aiM Rumai~ Se’icès determbaee,oz~a
tase.by.casfláslMbafl.
.
:...
.
(F) bysttxkin~oig U1~ periodatthe exidofparagraph (2XA) and
Plan to reduce
.1
M,a.~V+I,
.
.
reliance on aixen
.4A~~~a~sy5.
.eI%P9vaw t’4S
~.!Tay5
.
h siéiuxrn.
4t~ and:(ni theprramhawacømprehenswe.plamto
r~xce
P Y.
on then p~iyalcian~ wbichplan the Seeretai~y ofRealtk4nd Human
Services finds,iii accordancewithcritenapublished by the Secietary,
tobesafrtoi’flndtoindude~efo1lowingJ.
.
.
“(ISA detailed dmeuuzon ofapecifioprobipins thaLthe program
anticipates withoutsuch waIver and ofthe alternative resources
and methpds (including use of pl~y8ic1an extenden and other
par~pro1eØoiia1g) thathave been copsidez’ecl and havebeen and
will b~pphedto reducesuch disruption. in. the delivery ofhealth
ser@ces
“(U) A detailed description of those changçs of the program
(ni~ludmg ‘Irnprovement of educatienal and medical services
trammg) which have bemi considered and wh;cb have been or
~i11.be applialwhich wntild .zflá~ e jheprogram.mote attractive
to gtaduatee of medical schools who are citizens of the United
States
“WI) A detailed description of the rec~iuting efforts which
have been and‘5’zill be undertaken to attract graauates ofmedical
schools who are citizens oftheThilteft States
“(IV) A detailed description and analysis of how the program,
on a year-by.yearbasis, has phased down and will phase down Its
dependence qpon aliens *ho are gradua¼s of foreign medical
schools so that the ptogram will not be dependent upon the
admissLo~z to the Drogra~of~
-
.
~G) by ih~erting at the end of paragraph .(2XBY the following~
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 26 of 43

95 STAT. 1614
PUBLIC LAW 97-116—DEe: 29, 1981
Waivar~.
Report to
cor~
Report to
C4pgrea
8.USO.ii~2 note.
.~r ~.
$ u~&tfloi note,
“The Sqcretary ofHealth and Human Servk~s, incoordination with
the At arneyGeneral and theJ)IrecWr bf the International Conimu
nication Agency, :~baU (I) mdnitor ‘the ~ssu~nc~ of viewers under
sub$ragraph.(A) êtd the.need&of the communities (with.respect to.
winch such waivers are ~sued) to assure that quality medical care is
provided, and Cu) review each program with such a waiver to assure
that the plan described in subparagraph (AXiS) is being carried out
and that.párticipants insuch prograrnarebeing jrdvided appropri
ate supervision.in.their medical edtcatiowand traini~.
“(C)The$ØcretaryofTiealtfrandHuthanServjces,.in,co*rdinat~on
with. the; Attorney Gene.ral.a4 tl
)ire tar ~f the lu rational
Communication Agency1 shall report to the Congress at the begin
•nin~ of fI5cal yeare~19$2 and 198&o~.tliedfatribtgSou Cby.gepgraphy,
nationality, and medical specialty or field 01 practice) of foreign
medical graduates in the United States who have received a waiver
undez’subpar~graph~A), inchi4ing an analysis of the dependence of
the varioUs comthaUuties on aliens who greinniedical education or
trainingprograms inthe various medical specialties “, and
(8) by adding attheênd the following new p4ragraph-
“(3) The Director of the International Commumcation Agency
annually shaRjrai~nñtto.the.Congreesa report.oñ álienswhohave
.eubmltt~d:hffidavita: described iii paragraph (IXE), and shall inbiude
iñ’iuéjx rep
~ht name and ddiess Qf each’Miph alien, the. medical
education or training j*ogram in which such alien is participating,
àtdthèsãtus ofsuch:aU~fl.tbatprograa’~.
.
(c) The amendments thade by paragraphs (2), (5), and (6) of subsec
tion(b) shall apply tø alleas entering the United States as. exchange
visitors (or otherwise ac4ulring exchange visitor status) on or after
January 10, 197S.~
.
.
.
.
.
(d)~1).Sectinn 101 aX2V) (S U.S.C. 11O1(aX2V) iaaihendedhyatriking
out1 o91 at the Odd ofsiibparagra~ihØ, by striking out the periOd at
theend of:subpa~~g
pb(Gyat~d:
s’xtin~iñ1ieütherèof~or”, and
by adding after subparagraph (G) the following new subparagraph
“(Wan zmznigrant, and his accompanyingspouse and cluidren,
who—.~
.~
..
.
....
.
.
practice medicinemaforeign state,
“(n) was fully and permanently licensed tp practice medi
àine in &.St~te o~ JanUary 9, ~197$, ant was practicing
“(ill) entered the United States as a noni~i~t under
subEection(aX1BXH) or,(aXi5XJ)beforeJanuar~t10;.j978, and
4’(iv) ha been contipuously preâentiu the United States in
:
the ptagtiôe. or study’ ‘of medicine. sitce the~ date. of such
(2) Section 245(cK2) (8 U.S.C. Z255(cX2)) Is amended b~f inserting “or
a special I
iiipaht described in section. 101(aX2ThHY’ after “an.
~
(e)TheSecretarflffleálthand Human Servicee,afterconeuj,tation
with the Attorney GeneraI~tlje Secretary ofState, audshe Directorof
the Internatioiial Communication Agency, shall evaluate the effec
tiveness add.value~to.foreiga;natious. and. to the United States of
exchange programs for the graduate medical education or trainingtf
aliens who are graduates offoreign medical schools, and shall report
to.Cbngress, notlater than ~Taduary ~.5, 19.88, on such evaluatioaand
iuclude insuch. report such récothmehdations. for changes in legisla
tjon.an4regulations asm~ybeappropnate,
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 27 of 43

Case r20-cr-00228-UNA
Document 33
Filed 07120120
Page 27 of 55
PUBLIC LAW 97-116—DEC. 29,1981
95 STAT. 1615
Sac. 6. SectIon 228Q) (8 U.S.C. 1203(b)) isarnendedhy striking out
“one year from the, date of issuance: .htuid~ ‘That the Attorney
General may In hfrdlécretioaextendthe *lidi~’ ofthe permit for a
period or periods not exceeding one year in the a~flgaW’ and
inserting in lieu thereof “two years toni the date of issuance and
ofsection 287’s U.S;C. 1227) is amended to
DeportaUca
reaêssfoflowW
“(axi) Any alien (other than an alien cre*fln) arflvmg’jn the
United States who. Is ezc’Iuded under this Ac% shall be immediately
depo~Wd, in. accomrnodatioiwotthe:sanieclasa In which he arrived,
unleas the Attorney GeneYal~ In an. Individual. case, In his discretion,
codoludatbat Immediate deportation is not practicable or proper.
Deportation shall be to the country In whichthe alien boardea the
veI.oraircraftonwhlchlw.adintheUnitedState% unleesthe
alienboardedsuchveeselon~rcraftinforeigwtan4torycontIguouato
the United:States or inany island adjacentthereto or adjacent to the
United Sta$ee and: the alien Is not a native, citizen, subject, or
a dé
not bates reøideSin~ Such:forelgn contiguous
t&fitory or adjacent Island,, in which G
the’ de?ortation shall
instead be to the country in whichit locsteê the portaL which the
alien embarked for muCh. foreign contiguous territory Or adjacent
islanL The coØt’ofthe
nciudlngdetentionexpen~ea and
DetenUon
expenses incident to detenUonof ny such alien while he is being
ezPens~
detained shall be borne by the owner or owners of the vessel or
aircraft on which he arrlved~ except that the cost of maintenance
(including detention expen_see and ezpensee. incident to detention
while the alien is beg detalne4 prior to the time he is offered for
dei~rtation to the trnsportation line ‘w)iich brought 1dm to the
United States) shall not be assessed againt the pwfler or owners of
such vessel or aircflft’if (A)th~. alien was in possee&on of a valid,
unexpired immigrant was, or (B) the shea (other than an alien
crewman) was in position ofa valid, une~flornmniIgi~ant visa
or other document authofizingauth alien ‘to apply for temporary
adzflls&ontOtheU~ltedStates oza une~1redreentrypermItisaued
to him, and (I) euc$ application wes•made wlthii~ one hundred and
twenty days of the date Of Issuance Ofthe vIsa.Or other 4ocument, or
in the case of an alien in possession ofareentry permit, within one
hUndted and twenty days 0131,0 dateon which the alien was last
examine& and admitted by the Service, or (ID in the event the
application was medelat.
. tba one hundred and twei4y days of the
date of isau9nce pith. visa or other document or such exaniinatio±z
and admission, if the owner or Owners of such vessel or aiztraft
established to the satisfaction of the AttornOy General that the
ground of exclusion could not have been ascertained by the exercise
of due dIligenoe~priot to the alien’s embarkation, or (C) the person
claimed UnIted~tates.natlonaIi4y or c~tizeiship and was inposses
sion of an unexpired United Sta*es passport issued to him by
cornpetenta~itJiOrzty.
“(2)11 the gotermuent of the countq designated in paragraph (1)
Nonacceptance
will not accept the alieh into its territory, the alien’s deportation
of deported
shall be directed, b~ the Attorney General, in his discretion and ~
without necessarily giving any priority-or preference be&ise of their
order as her in set forth, either to—
“(A) the country of which the alien is a subject, citizen, or
national;
9$) the country in which he was born;
“CC) the country in which he has a residence; or
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 28 of 43

Case 1 20-cr 00228-U NA
Document 33
Filed 07/20/20
Page 28 of 55
95 STAT. 1616
PUBLIC LAW 97-116—DEC. 29, 1981
“0)) any .country wh&ch•is wjlling to accept the alien into its
territory, if 4eportation to any, of the foregoing countries is
impracticable,. iñadtisable1.or impossible.”.
(5) Subsection (1>) ofsückseétidn is amended—
(1) by striking out “CO the cotmt~’ whence be caine” In clause
(3) and inserting in lieu thereof ‘to the country to which his
deportafionhas been directed?’; and
(2) by striking out “colleótor ofcustoms” each place it a~ppears
and’. )nserUn~in flea thereof “district director of customs”.
Transportation
3c) Subsection {c) of‘such section ii amended to read as follows:
expense.
‘(c) An álie’a shall bedepoitèd on a vessel or aircraft owned by the
sale. person who owns the vesel or aircraft. on which the alien
arrived ifle tjzjft4 States, unless it is .impracflcable to so deport
thfllienwithin~aressonablaUms The ttansgortatioaexpenseofthe
alien’s ~deportation shall be borne by the owner or owners of the
vessel or aIrcraft on wihjóh the alien arrived~ If the deportation is
effected on a vessel or aircraft notowned by such owner or owners
the transportatiOn expense of the then’s deportation may be paid
from the.Øppropdation.fort~e eqft,rcement ofthis Act and recovered
by.; civil sult.kom spy owner, agent, or consignee of the vessCl or
aircraft ou”whickthe alienarnvea”
Deportation.
Sm 8..Sqctiqn 241(t) ca LKC. 126.1(0)12 am~nded to read as follows:
“(IXlXA)’Th&p±óvjalOñáöfthiiieotiOn relating to the deportation
o~ aliens within ‘the~,nitad,8tatee.ori the ground that they were
excludable at the timeofentry as aliens who have sought to procure
or haveyrocured vieas..or other documentation, gr entry into the
United States, by fraud or misrepresentation, whether willfthl o~
hmnoceut, may, .i tbediscr~Uon.ofthe.Attor~~y General, be waived
for any alien (other than an alien described in subsection (aXl9))
who—
,..
.
..
“0) iw.t1r~ spouse, pareqt%. or chIld of,aiitizen of the United
States :orotánaliènlswfuuyadáitte4 to thç~Un1ted States for
~peru~anent~res1dence;an
..
.‘fQi) was in .pn
‘ba pf .i~ immigrant visa or eQuivalent
doopme$.and was
. ;othervnse.adp’f~gjble ‘to the. United States ~t
the time ofsuch entry except for those grounds ofinadmissibility
S USC 1181
apacifted under paragr4bs (14), ~O), and (21) of section 212(a)
which were a di ~ctresUlt of that fraud or misrepresentation.
Waiver of
“(B) A. waive. of deportation for fraud or ihiarepnsentatidn
deportation,
ranted under su$pai’agrapb (A) sbaU also operate t~. waive de
portation based on the grounds of inathmsslbilty at entry described
under subparagraph (AXb) 4irectly resulting from such fraud or
misrepresentation.
“(2) The provisions of subsection(aXil) as relate to a single offense
of simple possession of 30 gr~ or ieee of rnarihuana may, in the
discretiofl of the Attorney General, be waived for any alien (other
than analiendescribedin.subsettion (aXl9)) who—
“(A) is the spouseor clilidota citizen ofthe United States or of
an alien lawfully admitted for. permanent residence, or
“(B) bas.aebil&wb&is•a.citlten oftheUnit.ed Statesor an alien
lawfullyadrnittedlorsermanent ~‘esidence,
if 14 is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the
alien’s deportation wqçld,.re~ul4.in extreme. hardship to the.United
States citizen or lawfully resident spou~e, parent, or child of such
alien and that~ such wpiver. would not be contrary to the national
welfare safety, or security of the United States.”.
Ssc. & Subsection (I) of section 244 (8 U.S.C. 1254) is amended to
read as follows:
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 29 of 43

Case 1:20-cr 00228 UNA
Document 33
Filed 07120120
Page 29 of 55
PUBLIC LkW 97-116—DEC. 29, 1981
95 STAT. 1617
“(I) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to an alien
who—.
“(1) entered the United States as a Crewman subsequent to
June30, 1964~
“(2) was aamitted. to the United States as a nonimmigrant
exchange alien as,defined I~ section l01(aX15XJ), or has acquired
S USC 1101.
thestatus of such wioflirnmlgrant exchange alien after admis
sion, in order to receive graduate medical education or training,
regardless ofwhether or not the alien is subjectto or has fulfilled
the two-year foreign residence requirementof section 212(e); or
S USC 1182.
“(3M) was admitted to the United Slates as a nonimmigrant
exchange alien as defined in section 101(aXl5XJ) or has acquired
the status Of such a nonimmigrant exchange alien after admis
sion other than to receive graduate medical education or trabi
ing, (B) is subject to the two-year foreign residence requfrement
of section 212(e), and (C) has not fuUllied that requirement or
received a waiver thereof.”.
SEc. 10. Section 248 (8 U.S.C. 1268) Is amended by striking out Nanipimipant
“except” and all that follows tbto~
theind and inserting in lieu
classification.
theteofthe following: “except in the case of—
“(1) an alien classified as a nonimmigr~it undersubparagraph
(C), (0), or (K) ofsection 1O1(àWl5),
“(2) an alien classified as a nonimini~rant under subparagraph
(J) ofsection IOl(aXlb) who came to the Un
d:Stat_ oflc4uired
such claisification In order to receive graduate medical edi&a
tionortralning,and
“(B). an alien (other than an alien deacribed In paragraph (2))
classified as a nonfrnntigrant under subparagraph (J) of section
XQ1(aKl6) who is subject to the two-year foreign residence
requirement of section 212(e) and has not received a waiver
thereof, unleessuch alien applies to have the alien’s clasaifica
Uoz~ changed from classification under subparagraph CM of set-
don 1O1(axlS) to a classification under Hubparagraph (A) or (G) of
such section!’.
-
Sn II. Section 265(8 U.S.C. 1805) is ainende&to toad Os follows:
Allen
“Szc. 265. (a) Each alien required to be re~Btered under this title
i7jsttation and
who is within the United States shall notify the Attorney General in
~
VCSS cbangea
writing of each change of address and new address Within ten days
from the date of such change and furnish with such notice such
additional information as the Attorney General may require by
re~~ü]ation.
(5) The Attorney General may in his discretion, upon ten days
notice, require the natives of any one or nz&e foreign states,. or any
class or group thereof, who are within the United States end who are
required to be registered under this title, to notify the Attorney
General of their current addresses and furnish such additional
information asthe Attorney General may require.
“(c) In the case of an alien for whom a parent & legal guardian is
required to apply for registration, the notice required:by this section
shall be given to such parent rn-legal guardian.”.
:Szc. 12. Subsection (5) of section 2’?4 (8 U.S.C 1824) is amended to
Conveyances
readasfouows:
.
.
used In customs
“(bXl) Any conveyànae~, including any vesael,-vehiôle, or aircraft
laws violation.
which is used in the commission of a violatio4 ofsubsection (a) shall
be subject to seizure and forfeiture, except that—
“(A) no on-veyance used by any person aSaconhnon carrier in
the transaction of business as a common csrrier.shãlt’beforfeit.ed
under the provisions ofthis section unless it shall appai-that the
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 30 of 43

95 STAT. 1618
PUBLIC LAW 9M16—DEc. 29,1981
oymer or otlie~ person in, charge .of~ such conveyance wag a
donsenting’party or, Prtv.to the lltegal act; and
•
‘~) no. conVeyance àhall be~ forfeited under th~ provIsions of
this section by reason of any act ór’oniission Qstablished by the
owner thereofto-have bean comEittad or omitted by Ap~’,persoñ
other then such ownerwhile such conveyance Was unlawfully in
the possesewn of a person other than the owner in violation of
thecrinilnailaw~oftheUnjtec1$tataor pfaiiyState~,
•
“(2)’ Any conyeyance subject to.~izuAeuh4er this seëtión~ziiay be
seized without warrant if there is probable cause to believe the
conveyance has been. used. in a violation of subsection (a) and
circumstances existwhere a wartant is not constitutionally required
“(8) All pnyiaong of law relating to the seizures summary and
judicial forfeiture~ an4 condemnation of property fdr the violation of
the customs law% the disposition of $~icb property or She proceeds
from the sale thereof, the remzsai,on or zmtigation of such forfeitures,
and the compromise of claims and the award of compensation to
jnforñiem ji~ reapect..ofsuch.forfeftuxes S1i~II apr43’: t~ Seizures, and
foifezture~ incuryed, or alleged to have been incurred, under the
provisions of this section, insofar as applicable end not moonsistent
witltthe provisions :he~f; except that’.4uties imposed on customs
officers .oi’ other persons regArdin~ the’ ~ei*ure~ and .fçrfeiture of
conveyances undetthe;customs;lawashau be. performed with respect
to seizures and fbrfeitures earned out under the provisions of this
section by such.ofticen ór.peçeons authorized for that.pttpqse by the
Attornçy QelieraL
‘..
•.
•.
• “(4) Vihenever.nonv.eyance. is forfeitad;under ‘this section the
Atiørney Ge eral thay”~-j
.
.
•
.
“(A) retain the cohve
ce.forofficialjjse;
‘:
•
.
dt(fl),~fl’~ conveyanpe,Jn wlilchcpse tJj~.proceeds ftc ii any
such salt shall be used to pay an prqpey ex~euses of the
proceedingsfor foifeiture and sale including expenses ofseizure,
maintenance ofcuatody~ advetising, and court Coats) or
•
“(C) require that the ‘General Ser’dices Admmistration” take
custody of the conyeyanc~ çnd remove it for disposition in
acco ds
t a
“(5) li~ all suits or actions b~oilght for the fQrfviture? of any
conveyance seized under this section, where the conveyanp& is
claimed by any person, the burden. of proof shall be upon such
clámanti.ft*bj&c4 ~hqt p
abl&cause shall%wtIt thown’fov~thé
institution of such suit or action In deternuning whether probable
cE~:eith’ts; any~ofthe,foUbwing shall’ be prima faeie:.evideüce .$bat
an alien rnvolved in the alleged violatzo~ was not lawfully entitled to
enter, or reside within theVmted States
“(A) Records of any judicial or administrative proceeding ih
which tt1at ~heWr status was an issue and in Which ~L was
determined that the alien was not lawiiilly entitled to enter, or
•
reside.within;theUnit~.States.
‘~
,
,
‘~‘(B) O~cial. records ~f~the, Service showing tlrnt’the alien.was
not lawfully entitledto enter, or reside within, the United States
“(C) Testimony, by an imnu3ratzon officer having personal
•
•
,
knowledge of the fa~ta’ côncermng that çliàn’i status, that the
alien was not entitled to enter, or reside within1 the, United
•
.. Statesi’..
,‘
•
•.•
‘
.,,
:.‘
•
.‘
SEQ. 13~ Sectión’2$6, (8 U:SC.,18~6jis ameiided—’,
(1) by redesignating su~beection 01) as subsection (c) and by
Inserting ‘~nd subsection OY’ in that subsection after “Except as
other
spr4yi’dç4 lb eubs~ctidn (a)”, and
, ,‘.
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 31 of 43

Case 1:20-cr 00228-UNA
Document 33
Filed 07/20/20
Page 31 of 55
‘I.
ti’
liii
I,
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 32 of 43

9 .ST*t’.1620
PuBLIC LAW 97—1i6#t DEC. .29, 1981.
•
(0) by~stz&ing out, the .period~at< tl~e endof aub~ang
ph CE) of
á~icJi subsection andinsertinginlieu thereof “; orb.
• (b) Section iO6(aXi) (8’US.C;il05a(aXl)).isameudeaby striking out
the penod at the end and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon
• (c) Section 202(b) (S U.S,C?1152(5))Is amende4~by;insérting f~add”.
before U(4)fl
0) Section 204(a). (81U.S;C. 1154(a)) isamendedby. stnking out “of
the relationships. described: in’ ‘paragraphS~’f aM ~
.jjj lieu
thereofl,fa relationship deecdbedinparagrapW...,
:
(e)’Sectión’ 212 (BUSS). 1182) Isaniended—
.‘
(1) by.ina~rting.9Qhr:subgec~j~~ (aX32) after: “jg:jxt the United
.~ :$t~ft%”,.~~:,
• ~ ...
.
.
•
:.
.:
.
Alie~x
(2).b~:ádd~gatthflndihélbllowingnewsubsection:
admittance.
~. !4Qt) Anflhtén, exãládable.fr&thetjnited State&’upde~ãragraph
(14), (20), or (21) ofsubsection (a), who is itt possession of an immigrant
vi*niBjcifotheh,Ise~dmissible,i*adreittedinthecljscretjoj’iofthe
Attorney General ifthe.Attortey General is satisfied :thav exclusion
was iiot known to,. and could-not; have been ascerté.itedb~? the
exeiài~.ofreasofiabledfligtnce by, the immigrañtbefore the time of
depai~tuti of the teae1 ôt aircraft .ftc$th the Iast’~ort outaid& the
Un
4$
d outside
contiguous territory or, lathe case
of ah
n
tcon ug
feigeozitiguot
tertitØry, before the
timeofthe immigrant’npphcaton for admission”
Ct) Section 221(a) (8 U SC 1201(a)) is amended by ~trlking out the
period aft~r “is charged” and flaserting in lieu thereof a comma
(g) Section 231(d) (8. U.S.C 1221(e) i~ ameñded~by1trikm
out
“subeôétion.s”andinserfin~jitJjéuthetéof’%ubs~ctjbjj”~
(l~(1XA) The efeyehth se~ntenøe of subsectign (b) of section 242(8
U:Sn1252fl8wUeudedbystriki~ out “or (187’ and hise~tin~1n 1jeti
thereof“(18), or (197’
(B) Subsection (e) of siidh section is amended by striking out “or
(18)Ptadinaertingihlieü thereof“(18X,or(19)”...
•‘•
(2) Subeectioa (a) of section 244 (8 U SC 1254) is amended by
inebrtitg “(other than an. alien described in section 241(aXla)Y’ after
“in thE ~a
Of an
IeU” Lu ~ matter before. pthagiapb (Th
(ft fle. fourth sentence of section 248(a) (8 U.SS). 1253(a)) is
amended by ansertjng a commaafter “subject”
(j) Section.2440) (8 U.S,C 1254(d)) is amende4—
(1) by striking out ‘~nonpreferezace”,mjd
(2) by stnlqng out “208(aX7)” and inserting in lieu thereof
“201(a) or 202(~”.
OcXl) Section 291 (8 U S.C XSQ1) is ame&Ied by striking out “quota
linigrant, &: noinuotä~f4~” sad. inserting hi lieu thøref;
“immigrant, special .imznxgrant~ iniiaediafe relative, ot refills!’.
(2) Section 349(a)(1) (8 U.S C 1481(a)(1)) is am~ended by sti~lan
out “nonauota Immigrant?’ and inserting in lieu thereof “spec
imnugrant”.
.Wsectton:809(?c.S.q. 1409)i~ anwnded—
.
(1) by striking out ~(8),, (~
(6), ~n4
. (7iof section 301(a)” in
subectiön (a) and inserting in lieu thereof “Cc),. Cd), Ce), and Ig) of
scction~S0V’,Md. ~.
(2) by striking óut!’301(aX?)”. iniübsection (b) and inserting in
1ieuthereof’~30i®t’.
.
.
.
.
• (in) Sections 320(b)1 .821(b), and .322(b) (8 U.S.C. 1431(b),: 1482(b),
1433(b)) are each. amended by striking out ‘~a.chii4.a4opted while
under the age øfsixteen:.yeanwho!~.and inaØrting4n lieu thereof”dn
adopted child only ifthe çhfld’~.
•
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 33 of 43

Case 1:20-cr-00228-UNA
Document 33
Filed 07/20/20
Page 33 of 55
PUBLIC LAW 97-116—DEC. 29, 1981
95 STAT. 1621
(ii) section 822(8 U.S.C 1438)1g.further amended by adding after
aubsectlon(b) the.following neW Subsection:
“(c) In the caae oftadopted ohIld(1)who iginthe United States at
the time o naturalization1 and (2) one bfwhoee adoptive Parents (A)
petitions fbr natUraflfltioh of the. child ‘under this section, W) meets
the criteria of da~~(A)~,(B)” áM(C) of .aection 819(b)(1), and (C)
8 USC 1430.
decln before the naturaliZation courtin good faith an Intention to
take up ,reeidence within the Unite’ :Statea hnmediat$~ upon: the
termination of the employment described in section SlwjXiXB) no
specifiedpof*esMence within thejufr~dictzon ofthenatural a
tion court or proof:tfreofshaflbere4uI~edI’,
(o). The fourth sentence .61 section,~ 8~Na) (&U;S;C. 1448(a)) Is
amended by striklng,Out ~OW828”
(p1 Sectio
841(8 U.S.C. 1452) is. ~yg~jj4~ 1~y strikin~4ut “(8), (4),
(5), Or (‘flatsectlon.801(a)” and 1pjerth~g.jnljeirthereof ‘(o),(d) (e), or
(gi ofsection 801”.
(qi Seätlon 849(8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended by section 4 of Public
Law 954fl is amendedbystriking’outthesecond “(ar’ after”849.”.
(r)Sec$Ion 851•(8’U.S.C, 14$8)IE amended—
(1)b striking out “paragraphs (7), (8), and,(9) ofsection 849” in
subsection (a) and’ Insetting in Lieu thereof “paragraphs (6) and
(7) ofsection.349(aY’,ahd
(2) by strlklnç out “(5), and (6)” in subsection (b) and inserting
in lieu thereof and (BY’.
(s) Section 404(8 U.S.C. 1101 note) is. amended by inserting “(oth*
than chapter2 oftiflelv)” after “this Act”.
(t) The table of contents Is amended by striking out the items
relating to sections 845w 850,352.858,854, and.856.
(uX1) Section 1429 of title 18’ United States Code, is amended by
striking out “subsection Ce)” aná inserting’in lieu thereof “subsection
(2) The Act. of March 16, 1966 (8 U.S.C. 1401a) is amended by
striking cut “801(aX7Y’ and inserting in lieu thereof“801(g)”.
Sn 19~ The numerical limitations contained in sections 201 and
BUSOIIS1 note.
202 of the immigration and Nationality Act shall tot apply to any
80801151,
alien who is present in the United States and who, on or before
1152.
June 1 1978—.
(13 qualified as a nonpreference immigrant under section
208(aXB) ofsuch Acb(as’ln effect on June 1,1178);
80801153.
(2) was determined to be exempt from the labor certification
requirement of section. 212(aXl4). Of such Act’ because the alien
8 USC usa
had actually invested, before such date, capital in an enterprise
in the United States of which the alien became a principal
manager and whic3i employed a person. or persons (other than
the spouse. or childxen ofthe alien) who are citizens ofthe United
States or alIens lawfully admltt d for permanent residence; and
(8) applied for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully
admitted ~ór pennapentxesidence;
Szc, 20. SectIon 201(a) (8 U.S.C. 1151(a)). is amended, by inserting
after I?two hundred seventy thousand” the followlnw “: .&ouided
That, to the, extent that in a particular .*al year the number of
aliens who are issued Immigrant visas~r who mafltl)erWise.ac4uire
the statutof aliens lawfully admiti., for pennant residence. and
who are. subject to the numerical limitations:ofthis section, together
with the aliens who adjust their statps’toaliens IaWfWIy admittedfor
permanent residence pursuant to $zbpatagraph (~ of section
10i(aX27) or section 19 of ‘the Imznigrauon and Nationality Amend.
8 USC 1101.
meats Act of 1981. exceed the annual numerical liMitation in effect
Supra
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 34 of 43

Case 1’20-cr
0228 UNA
Document 33
Filed 07120120
Page 34 of 55
95 STAT. 1622
PUBLIC LAW 97-116—DEC. 29, 1981
pursuant to this section for such year, the Secretary of State shall
reduce to such extent the annual numerical limitation in effect
pursuant t*tlgs sectionfor thefollowingfiscal year”.
(b) Section .20(a) (8 USC. 1162(a)). is amended by inserting after
“yeá?thefoJlowinw”:.4,~4p,vvidedftsrtha~ That totheextentthat
in a particular fIscal year the number of such natives, who are Issued
im~Igrant visas or who may otherwise acquire the stAtus of aliens
lawibI~admkted for pernianentresidence and-who are subjectto the
nwne7nfllmitalion ofthis section, together with the.aliens from the
same foitign state whoadjust their status to aliens lawfully admitted
for permanent residence pursuant to subparagraph (B) of section
8 USC 1101.
1O1(aX2T) or section. 19 of the.Inimigration and Nationality Amend-
Ante, p. 1621.
ments Act of 1981, exceed the numerical limitation In effect for such
year pursuant tofl section, the Secretary of State shall reduce to
such extent the.’nnerical limitation in effect for the natives of the
same foreign state pursuant to this section for the following fiscal
year”.
Effective dates.
Sac. 21.. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and in section 5(c),
8 USC 1101 note,
the amendments made by this Act shall take effect.on the date of the
enactmentofthis.Act.
O,X1) The amendments made by section 2(a) shall ‘apply on and
after the first day ofthe sixth month beghmingafter the date of the
enactmentofthis Act.
(2) The amendment made by section 16 shall apply to fiscal years
begiunlngnn orafter October 1, 1981.
Approved December 29, 1981.
LEGmLATWE IIISTORY—lLIt 4227
HOUSE REPORT Na. 97-264 (Comm. on theJudialary).
CONGRESSIONAL 1~ECORD, Vat. 1t7 (198Th
Oct. la. tonsidez
endjm~me4 House.
amended; House concurred in Senate
amendments.
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 35 of 43

EXHIBIT 4
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 36 of 43

Case 1:20-cr-00228-UNA
Document 33
Piled 07120120
Page 36 of 55
I
I
Septuagint: Psalms 2, Psalms 47, Psalms 54, Psalms 67, Psalms 68, Psalms 113,
RE:
STATE OF ARKANSAS STATE FILE NUMBER: 6512262
Alphident:
MAURICE JOHNSON PAYNE
PAYNE,
MAURICE JOHNSON
Numident:
429539389
429-53-9389
C~ 62 ZH;400211
To whom it may concern,
I am, the private human, in full life, to animate the flesh, blood, and bone body, known commonly as
lactic. ~iIncs~a nun “. being of sound mind, body, and soul, by restricted special appearance, hereby
slates forevermore ror the record as a living memorial [lint: I am personally familiar with the facts
staled herein. Having been begotten by my natural mother,
tuIiln.~ulm.u
‘ : Long Count Date
12.17.13.17.10 [August 10th, 1967], at the land known commonly as: the north gate / at maghrib al
aqsa / parkin, arkansas / States of the Union, us the living soul, and occupant, of this 52 year old body
that the lord god has provided me, at (he time of this writing,! affirm that I have attained the age of
majority.! affirm & certify, under penalty of perjury, on the blood of my ancestors, love of god, and
universal law, that the statements made herein are true and correct to the best ofrny volition, honor,
knowledge, customs, and beliefs
Maternal Affidavit of Fact
Page I ol’3
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 37 of 43

Case 1:20-cr-00228-UNA
Document 33
Filed 07/20/20
Page 37 of 55
As a result of the holy covenant with my husband,
‘ilik hicks’, on Long count Date
12.1 8.9.14.14 [March 23rd, 1983], at 06:36 pm, at Latitude 35.223549° N /-90.787l17°W, on the
land known commonly as: the north gate / al maghrib at aqsa I wynne, arkansas I States of the Union,
our begotten son was born into flesh. He caine to be known in full life, by restricted special appearance
as,
“ niaui i& C joliiisoii fu~ ;it’—
© , noni deguerre: hi~ tic’ pinurict j.iliiis’’n© “.
Shortly after having just given birth to my begotten son
iiaurin
johnson
nite-t1C
, nom
dcgucrrc:
uuricc jalinson©”, and while enduring the painful process of child birth, contracts
like the Birth Certificate and Social Security number were presented to our tribe, and issued, while I
was under legal disability, was legally incapacitated, and under temporary disability. There was no full
disclosure, no consideration, nor any meeting of the minds, to cause said contracts to be issued in the
name MAURICE JOHNSON FAYNE©,
FAYNE, MAURICE JOHNSON©, etc., as they were
issued in bad faith.
As any loving mother should, I am fully supportive of my son’s high pursuit of happiness in full
life, and hereby gives lawful notice of my rescission of any and all signatures ever signed by
myself in relation to “ inauiz.’e joli n~~n fayne—( ~ , nom deguerre: finna. ninu rice jiihnsoiiiti “,
that caused STATE OF ARKANSAS STATE FILE NUMBER: 6512262, MAURICE JOHNSON
FAYNE©,
FAYNE, MAURICE JOHNSON© Social Security Administration Account Numbers
429539389,429-53-9389, ‘;t,2!R311t241, etc., to ever have been created, None pro tune.
I hereby relinquish any alleged authority, or rights, title, and interest in the property, STATE OF
ARKANSAS STATE FILE NUMBER:
6512262, MAURICE JOHNSON FAYNEcP,
FAYNE,
MAURICE
JOJINSON©
Social
Security Administration
Account
Numbers
429539389,
429—53-9389, (.t.22NMl02O. etc., to cause to be divested in, and inalienably retained, by the naked
& beneficial owner, absolute in possession by freehold tenure, my noble son,
“ itinutict johnson
© , nom deguerre: fi, vat’ inait r cc
Public Notices
Although done as an act of my sotis own free will, I ant fully supportive of the information, my
noble son, “ uttitirice johnson hiviw—el© , nom deguerre: 1:1) or. ni~tiince jnhnson© “, expressed in
the Newspaper Public Notices of
LU,5not
?~cn~te,4
on
__________
2020,
Su,
)‘lM
, 2020,
L.L ~
, 2020, and
fliau~
2020.
ii
C
In God We Trust
Declaration of Nationality
Notice of Special Appearance
I am that I am: “ Maurice Johnson Faync© “, in full life, in propria
persona, sui juris, in solo proprio, by natural issue, the beneliciaiy and heir of:
Fayne, Maurice
JohnsonQ “, corp.sole Dba.: “Maurice Johnson FayneC”.
‘ PAYNE, MAURICE JOHNSONC
coip.sole Dba.: “MAURICE JOTTNSON FAYNEI~, “, havhig rcacl,cd the ago of majority. being
aboriginal to the northwestern and southwestern shores of Africa, the Atlantic Islands, the
continental Americas, being duLy certified, hereby affirms to declare my tribal intention to be as
my pedigree subscribes, as an: aniyunwiya Moorish American National, but not a citizen of the
United States. I declare permanent, and unalienable, allegiance to the Moorish Empire,
Societas Republicac En Al Maurikanuus Estados, The Constitution for the united States of
America, Article Ill Section 2, International Law, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples, and all natural laws governing moors, and hereby declare and proclaim
my nationality as an: aniyunwiya moorish american moslem. Tarn that I ani: “Maurice Johnson
Fayne© “, from this dny forward, in harmony with my Nationality / Status / Jurisdiction, shall bt
known as: “ maurice johnson faync-clc~’”. Notice of Merging of Legal Title with Equitable Title
This order is to preserve legal and equitable title
, and to reserve all rights, title, and intcresl, in
Maternal Affidavit of Fact
I’age 2 of 3
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 38 of 43

Case t20-cr-00228-UNA
Document 33
F led 07/20/20
Page 38 of 55
tile property, Re: “ Fayne, Maurice JohnsonO”, corp.solc Dba.:
Maurice Johnson Faynec”,
FAYNE, MAURICE JOHNSON© “, coip.solc Dba.:” MAURICE JOHNSON FAYNE’~ “, to the
depositor:” maurice Johnson fayne-cl© “. All propcity ,of the same issue and amount, in like
kind and specie, is to be returned fully intact,as a Special Deposit order of the Depositor/
l3eneficiary / Bailor / Donor / Principal I Creditor: “ maurice johnson raync-cle “, as a spccial
deposit order in lawful money. This special deposit is to be used exclusively for the benefit of:
Payne-el, Maurice Johnson TrustO “, an Unincorporated Divine Grantor Trust. This deposit is
not to bc commingled with general assets of any bank . nor depositary I trustee / agent / bailce
/ donee I debtor. This deposit is not limited to, but including: discharge and set oil of any and
all outstanding liabilities as accord and satisfaction. Any and All Attorneys with a License from
the BAR Association are explicitly prohibited from administrating “ Payne-el. Maurice Johnson
Trust© “~ property without handwritten consent from each and every trustee, after said
Attorneys have furnished their nationality, and Principal for whom’s interest they are working,
U,ursuant to Public Law 75-583] to trustees in plain writing. All Rights Reserved.
Signed in the presence of:
County
State
Signed and affirmed to before me, a Nolary on
2020 ], that f.i1 iit~.
‘*n~ ‘,s I
personally appeared and known to me to be the woman whose name subscribed to the instrnnwnt
and acknowledged to be the same.
Notary/Putli. -
My Conitidssion Expires
In testimony whercof I, Unni, ‘.,,iu ss:i ann certify under penalty of perjury, that the statements made
herein are true and correct to the best of my volition, honor, knowledge, customs, and beliefs. I have
hereunto caused my appellation to be subscribed this [
~I, day of
~
2020).
I
lam that lam: _________________________________
‘-a
All Rights Rescrvcd
Without Prejudice
Deo Volente
Jus Cogens
JAY 13. FICKESS
Notary Public
STATE 0
My Commission Exp
Maternal Affidavit of Fact
Page 3 of3
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 39 of 43

EXHIBIT 5
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 40 of 43

FILED - Oklahoma Secretary of State #3612856042 0711612020
a
‘•—
-——
FOREIqNTRADENAMEENTIW
-
-
Submit Date: 71j8/2020
The trade name under which the business is carded on in Oklahoma is:
FAYNE, MAURICE JOHNSON
Legal Name:
FAYNE EL MAURICE JOHNSON TRUST
The type of “business entity” filing the trade name report is:
Unincorporated Business
—4
~--‘~-
~
•
-
AbDRE~SS(ES)
—--—
----.--—-—---—-~-—
--L-.~._
~.-..—1
6608 N WESTERN AVE #1307
Email - mauricejohnsonfayne
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73116 USA
ettrust©protonmail.com
[~-J~-’~t —---if-
Uplifting fallen humanity.
H
-
-
-
FUTURE ErFEGTIVEDATE
Effective Date:
Same as filing date.
~
-‘-~
—
-
————
;~•~
-~‘~
I
FOREIGNEN?JW
-
b-~’j
~~‘~-‘‘
-
-
-
-
-
--
—
—
The business entity was formed in the state of:
4
MOROCCO
-~
-SIGTURE-
-
MAURICE JOHNSON FAYNE EL
TRUSTEE
[End Of Image]
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 41 of 43

Case 1:
- ~
-
I
.-.
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 42 of 43

Case
•‘ ~!
ijE::
~-
;.;.
a
-
I
.
I
—
.-I
•
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 35     Filed 07/24/20     Page 43 of 43

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.278523.35.0.pdf

Size

13,971,463 bytes

SHA-256

704653f840d40c862032682ec7b50af66a9591b28ea8574ee5bc26315243e78b

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.278523.35.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)