moorish article iii courts are now active in north america due to the increase violence against declared and undeclared moorish people and the blatant discrimination in treatment for hybrid peoples vs moorish americans. these article iii courts are the highest courts throughout the land and will ensure justice for all peoples.
per article iii courts; Policy Enforcers are forbidden from engaging or detaining declared moorish american nationals. violations will result in liens being filed against their Personal Estates and the Corporations for whom they work.
Federal tribunals in the United States are those tribunals established by the federal government of the United States for the purpose of resolving disputes involving or arising under federal laws, including questions about the constitutionality of such laws. Such tribunals include both Article III tribunals (federal courts) as well as adjudicative entities which are classified as Article I or Article IV tribunals. Some of the latter entities are also formally denominated as courts, but they do not enjoy certain protections afforded to Article III courts. These tribunals are described in reference to the article of the United States Constitution from which the tribunal’s authority stems. The use of the term “tribunal” in this context as a blanket term to encompass both courts and other adjudicative entities comes from section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, which expressly grants Congress the power to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court of the United States. Source Wikipedia
“Ronald Greene’s” murder by highway men is the perfect example for which article iii courts are stripping authority from hybrid Policy Enforcers and their Corporations.
2402. Hobbs Act prohibits actual or attempted robbery or extortion affecting interstate or foreign commerce “in any way or degree.” Section 1951 also proscribes conspiracy to commit robbery or extortion without reference to the conspiracy statute at 18 U.S.C. § 371. The statutory prohibition of “physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section” is confined to violence for the purpose of committing robbery or extortion. United States v. Franks, 511 F.2d 25, 31 (6th Cir. 1975) (rejecting the view that the statute proscribes all physical violence obstructing, delaying, or affecting commerce as contrasted with violence designed to culminate in robbery or extortion).
The extortion offense reaches both the obtaining of property “under color of official right” by public officials and the obtaining of property by private actors with the victim’s “consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear,” including fear of economic harm. See this Manual at 2405 and Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255, 265, 112 S.Ct. 1181, 1188 (1992) (only a private individual’s extortion of property by the wrongful use of force, violence, or fear requires that the victim’s consent be induced by these means; extortion of property under color of official right does not require that a public official take steps to induce the extortionate payment).
Although the Hobbs Act was enacted in 1946 to combat racketeering in labor-management disputes, the extortion statute is frequently used in connection with cases involving public corruption, commercial disputes, and corruption directed at members of labor unions. Proof of “racketeering” as an element of Hobbs Act offenses is not required. United States v. Culbert, 435 U.S. 371, 98 S.Ct. 1112 (1978). However, a violation of the Hobbs Act may be part of a “pattern of racketeering activity” for purposes of prosecution under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute (18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq.).
[cited in JM 9-131.010]
we own no rights to these videos or photos and information contain or reported may not be the expressed views of the sceptre of judah website, american moor news media. this information is reported as news and education for community improvement throughout the world