Debunking sovereignty myths: RV Bey pubs false information. Pt. 1

May 6, 2015
KKK’s J.B. Stoner’s letter to Elijah Muhammad of the NOI.
May 22, 2015
Show all

Debunking sovereignty myths: RV Bey pubs false information. Pt. 1

Preface from the Grand Sheik.

This note marks a much needed series that will be undertaken by the new Moors of the Moorish Science Temple of America and those sympathetic with our movement and its cause. These “sovereignty,” “free man on the land,” etc, types of arguments have caused much pain to many families and caused many to get arrested and the people who propagate this type of information continues push forward with it. I will write up a much detailed breakdown in this regard at a future date. I hope you enjoy this breakdown and take it back to the people who teach it and see if it can be refuted. When it cannot, you will know that the Moorish Science Temple of America is the place where you are supposed to be demonstrating as a Moorish American Moslem which is a law abiding citizen. Peace, Grand Sheik Way-El.


Debunking the sovereign citizen myths adopted by the Moors

By C. Harrison-Bey

Islam.  Allow me to present 2 glasses of water and I’d like for you to tell me which one is dirty after you examine them carefully and honestly. 

Note: Taj Tarik Bey has experience in New Jersey courts as he’s a New Jersey resident. So, a lot of what he puts together appears to be based upon his experience and “knowledge” of New Jersey’s court system as well as Pennsylvania’s, I assume. 

From the site of rvbeypublications, it states:

“A Ticket / Summons is a Suit against you, you must counter it Lawfully. Although it has been presented unlawfully, because the person who suis you cannot serve you too, and they certainly can’t also be the witness for prosecution. Many hats a simple police man (policy enforcer) wears while his actions are a violation of separation of powers. By doing so, he is acting unlawfully in both his professional and personal capacity, and / is acting under the Color-of Office and Color-Of-Law. Often, particularly regarding traffic, Officers are acting as “Collection Agents, for other agencies, and are taking action against you for a supposed debt, or “failure to pay” a contract (that doesn’t lawfully exist), usually a surcharge, which in itself is an unlawful impost. Therefore, at the moment of hindering you from traveling, he is acting as an agent for an agency, and not as a public trustee. This is the game that has been used against the people to exploit them while also violating their substantive rights.”

Now, I’ve personally attempted to use this “information” in the past because I was a student at one point. However, upon REAL research, discussions with astute members of the legal profession, knowledgeable Moors and just some good old common sense, I came to the realization that the claims being made by RVBEY are in Fact erroneous. 

For instance, Taj/RVBEY starts out by stating:

“A Ticket / Summons IS a Suit against you…” [Emphasis Mine]  

It’s my contention that a little common sense will tell you that this assertion is fallacious. The Ticket or Summons is NOT a lawsuit against you but it IS Evidence that a Suit or Legal Action has been initiated. Stating such a thing could give a person who is knowledgeable in proper legal procedure, the impression that one doesn’t understand certain rudimentary practices of the legal process. 

RVBEY goes further stating that:

“Although it has been presented unlawfully, because the person who suis you cannot serve you too, and they certainly can’t also be the witness for prosecution.” 

Again, it’s my contention that this assertion is fallacious as it pertains to the issuance of the Ticket/Summons. New Jersey as well as every state, has Rules that Govern the Courts of the State.  RVBEY’s assertion is based on the Civil Rules of Procedure but what it does NOT do is consider the section of the Court Rules that govern the Municipal Courts specifically. 

In New Jersey, which is where Taj resides, there is a section of the court rules pertaining to Municipal Court Practice. PART VII — RULES GOVERNING PRACTICE IN THE MUNICIPAL COURTS.  Under RULE 7:2., Process, 7:2-1(g) Traffic Offenses, you can read for yourself what sections 1, 2 & 3 state which is in stark contradiction to what is written on RVBEY’s site. Follow this link to read those sections…  So you see, it’s NOT unlawful for a cop to issue or present a Ticket / Summons. 

Taj/RVBEY states that a cop who issues a ticket, “can’t also be the witness for prosecution.” However, there is no law that says a ‘policy enforcer’ cannot be a witness at a trial particularly if he/she actually witnessed an infraction or crime.  Quite the opposite is true.  Also notice that RVBEY provides no court rule or law to support what they’re asserting.  What it comes down to is that Paying traffic fines are a part of having your car on the public roads and consequently committing an infraction which would violate the rules of the road or some other motor vehicle law. 

Taj/RVBEY goes on to state:

“By doing so, he is acting unlawfully in both his professional and personal capacity, and / is acting under the Color-of Office and Color-Of-Law.”

Taj/RVBEY’s use of the term “Color of Law” is out of proper context and gives the impression that ANYTHING done “under color of law” is unlawful. However, the Dept. of Justice defines “Color of Law” within the context of Title 18 Section 242 as such… “For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials WITHIN THEIR LAWFUL AUTHORITY, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, IF the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties.” [Emphasis Mine] 

According to the FBI, “Color of Law SIMPLY means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.”…/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law.  

Color of Law is not the problem. All policemen and judges act under the color of law.  The problem is IF the police or judges or any other public officials act unlawfully and abuse the Rights of the citizens while acting in their official capacity or color of law capacity. 

Under the civil rights act of 1871 (42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983), color of law is synonymous with State Action, which is conduct by an officer that bears a sufficiently close nexus to a state so that the action is treated as though it is by the state. 

Finally, Taj/RVBEY’s definition of surcharge as an “unlawful impost” is not the proper sense of the word as it pertains to the courts imposition of such. To help understand this word in proper context as applied in courts, here is a good explanation of “Surcharge”. 

n. AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF MONEY MADE because it was omitted in the original calculation or AS A PENALTY, such as for being late in making a payment.  

The State of New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission defines “Surcharges” in this way:

“Surcharges are fines assessed by New Jersey Surcharge Violation System (NJSVS). Drivers who have excessive points for traffic violations or have been convicted in court for specific offenses  such as driving while intoxicated (DWI) are liable for Surcharge. Surcharges are in addition to any court fines and/or penalties and are billed yearly for three years.”

I hope this piece assists someone in being able to determine truth from falsehood, the clean glass from the dirty glass.

Peace, C. Harrison (Ali) Bey.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *