Whether the Treaty of 1787/1836 is self-executing and grants rights of extraterritoriality and consular court jurisdiction

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 2 This Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States o: 3 4 America and his Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Morocco (Treaty of 1787/1836 5 || was originally written in the Arabic language and sealed with His Majesties’ Roya 6 |!Seal. It was later translated into the language of the said United States of Americ 7 with the Original denotative meanings of the times in which it was written. Th 8 9 District Courts contention is that the Treaty of 1787/1836 is not self-executing, doe 10 |Jnot grant Rights of Extraterritoriality and Consular Court jurisdiction. I do no 11 ||possess a copy of the Treaty of 1787/1836 to provide the Court to interpret. 12 The Lower Courts contends that because Petitioner is allegedly 13 4 citizen of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, there is no diversity of citizenship 15 ||According to established law a citizen of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, is also ‘ 16 || citizen of the “UNITED STATES” Corporation. ; 7 Although a formal declaration of Moor American Nationality wai 18 , 19 placed in the record this contention and presumption persists. 20 , The questions presented are: 21 22 . . . . . 1. Will the International Court of Justices Translation and Interpretation be 23 enough to Construe that the Treaty of 1787/1836 is “SelfExecuting,” a4 granting “Rights of to citizens of the United States and Moors, and provide for “Consular Court Jurisdiction”? 25 26 2. Can the 14t Amendment be Construed as so to Violate the UNITED STATE 7 International Agreement, the Treaty of 1787/1836, by Presuming or Compelling Moors to be 14th Amendment Citizens? 28 : 1 ] PROCEEDINGS OF FIRST JUDGEMENT ; : * ||MICHAEL INGRAM EL, Petitioner 3 Vv. ; 4 5 ||JOE CRAIL; et al., Respondents 6 7 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 8 9 No. 19-16866 10 || Date of entry of judgement: September 15, 2020 11 }1U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO 12 . : D.C. No. 13 4 Date of entry of judgement: September 11, 2019 15 ||Michael Ingram El 16 || Petitioner 17 18 19 JOE CRAIL, 290 || WESTERN MUTUAL INSURANCE, 21 ||RESIDENCE MUTUAL INSURANCE 22 Respondents 23 ; 24 25 , 26 28 2 1 PROCEEDINGS OF SECOND JUDGEMENT 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA et. al, PlaintiffAppellee 3 4 Vv. 5 || MICHAEL INGRAM EL, Defendant-Appellant 6 . ’ I|UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 8 * IINo. 20-15345 . Date of entry of judgement: September 16, 2020 12 ||U-S. DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO 13 |/D.C. No. " Date of entry of judgement: January 24, 2020 , Michael Ingram E1. Defendant-Appellant 17 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 18 SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO . COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 21 . CITY OF SACRAMENTO 22 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFFS’ DEPARTMENT 23 SACRAMENTO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS’ OFFICE . Sheriff Scott Jones 26 Presiding Judge David De Alba . 27 Magistrate Jennifer Rockwell , oo 28 . 3 1 District Attorney Marie Schubert 2 Deputy O’Connor. Plaintiff Appellee 3 4