Whether petitioners' equitable primary rights are destroyed by denying their status as Moors, Americas' aboriginal Illinoisan nationals and subjects of the Al Maroc Shereefian Empire

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Show good cause whether petitioners equitable primary rights are not destroyed by any People bound by oath to be Persons worthy of trust, who presume that petitioners “is not” a People called Moors, americas aboriginal illinoisan national, and Subject of the Al Maroc Shereefian Empire, “but not citizen of the united states for the district of columbia, nor a Citizen of the united states of america in congress assemble; that a trust relation “does not” exist between petitioners, as Subjects of the Al Maroc Shereefian Empire, and the united states of america in congress assemble; 2. Show good cause whether the petitioners, as a People called Moors, and Subject of the Al Maroc Shereefian Empire, “do not” have a special and particular political status; “is not” entitled to his inviolate equitable primary rights protected by the Maxims of , Equity, and stipulated in the Treaty of Marrakech : 1787 ARTICLE XXI,, the Treaty of Marrakech 1836 ARTICLE XXI, the Treaty of Tunis 1824 ARTICLE XII., and all the Barbary Treaties through 1880 Madrid, still in full force and effect as of this date; the Article III, § 2§§ 1, of the 1789 constitution for the united states of america in Congress assembled, the Judiciary Act of 1789 1 stat 73 § 9. § 11, § 16, § 20, § 25., and § 26. and equity jurisprudence; 3. Show good cause whether, as People bound by oath to be Persons worthy of trust, the lower court’s and agent’s decision to dismiss petitioners claim, as the cestui que/beneficiary of the Trusts/treaties, “does not” destroy the equitable primary rights of the petitioners as a People called Moors; “is not” contrary to equity, good conscience, and good reason; and “is not” ii repugnant to the stipulations of the various treaties : entered into with the Al Maroc Shereefian Empire, the Constitution, and laws of the united states of america in Congress assembled. : 4. Show good cause why if the respondent in error fail to appear when the case is called for trial, the court “shall not” proceed to : hear an argument on the part of the petitioners and to give judgment according to the right of the case. 5. Show good cause whether petitioners as a People called Moors; and Subject of the Al Maroc Shereefian Empire, “do not” have a right that grows out of, or is protected by, a treaty; the treaty “does not” prevail against all laws, or decisions of the courts of the states; and she/he “is not” protected, if she/he _ makes her/his claim under the treaty. 6. Show good cause whether a trust “has not” arisen, and a fiduciary relation “does not” exists between the petitioners and respondents, their heirs and assigns, as People bound by oath to be Persons worthy of trust; and whether petitioners rights are not destroyed if she/he “cannot” rely strictly on reciprocity ° and the proper and complete good faith treatment of their fiduciaries in the absence of any guardian/ward relation; as the beneficial party entitled, in consequence of such relations various sums of money or other property of the petitioners that went, or should have gone, into the possession, or under the control, of the respondents, with a demand for specific performance, by due particularity, to produce a full accounting pursuant to the treaty; whether petitioners “cannot” be granted a list of all real, personal, and equitable assets or other property in which the petitioners have an interest; to pay over whatever may be due or belong iii , to petitioners, or the balance due petitioners on a full ; accounting, to be taken by the Clerk and Master, of such credits, money, property and the profits thereof; release any and all collateral and return all remaining trust res by reconversion to petitioners; and issue a decree for the amount found due concerning said debts due to my estate(s); 7. Show good cause whether any delay will prejudice petitioners (a defrauded party) as long as she/he was ignorant of the fraud; especially, if the respondent concealed the facts which i