Justyn Page v India Bey

Al Moroccan Empire Consulate at New Jersey state republic Moorish Divine and National Movement of the World
Northwest Amexem / Northwest Africa / North America / “The North Gate”
~ Temple of the Moon and Sun ~
~ Societas Republica Ea Al Maurikanos ~
The True and De jure Natural Peoples ~ Heirs of the Land
40.7475569” N, 74.2586082” W
Consular Court
International Document
6-Rabi al awwal-1441 [October 13, 2021]
Communication No. 1

The following information from the Registry of Al Moroccan Empire Consulate Court of Justice has been communicated to the Press:

The Al Moroccan Empire Consulate Court of Justice on the 29th day of Safar, 1443 M.C.Y. [October 5, 2021 C.C.Y.] delivered judgment in the case concerning the Rights of India Iman Vidal Bey, a Moroccan national in Morocco, proceedings in which were instituted against India ImanVidal Bey by an application of the Justin Page by way of The Family Court of the State of New York County of Queens of the United States Corporation (Public Law 856 Chapter 807).

The submission of the parties relates to the following principal points:

The application to Justin Page represented by The Family Court of the State of New York County of Queens of the United States Corporation et al. of Temporary Order of Custody and Visitation, Writ of Habeas Corpus, and Warrant for Arrest (V-04934-20;V-04933-20;V-06736-21;V-06735-21);

The extent of the State of New York jurisdiction which the Family Court of the State of New York County of Queens may exercise in District of Columbia at Washington;

The right to levy taxes on nationals of the United States in the State of New York with particular reference to Justyn Page’s (14th Amendment US citizen) claim to Moroccan nationals, Justyce Reign Vidal Bey and Jaxon Nova Vidal Bey.

In its judgment delivered today, the Court held:

Public Law 856 Chapter 807 of August 1, 1956, exempted Moroccan Nationals from United States jurisdiction; while the United States was subjected to such jurisdiction; Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the relinquishment by the President, at such time as he considers this appropriate, of the consular jurisdiction of the United States in Morocco is here by approved and sections 1693, 4083 to 4091, inclusive, 4097 to 4122, inclusive, and 4125 to 4130, inclusive, of the Revised Statutes, as amended, are repealed effective upon the date which the President determines to be appropriate for the relinquishment of such jurisdiction, except so far as may be necessary to dispose of cases then pending in the consular courts in Morocco. The Family Court of the State of New York County of Queens submissions, that their jurisdictional claims over India Iman Vida Bey, must be rejected.
With regard to consular jurisdiction in Morocco, the United States is entitled to exercise such jurisdiction in accordance with the terms of its Treaty with Morocco of September 16, 1836, that is to say, in all disputes, civil or criminal, between citizens or prodigies of the United States.
But the other submissions of the United States relating to consular jurisdiction are rejected: it is not entitled to exercise consular jurisdiction in other cases in morocco. Its right in this connection, which were acquired solely by the effect of the most favored nation clause, came to an end with determination by great Britain of all its rights and privileges of a capitulatory character by the Franco-British convention of 1937.
The United States had contended that its nationals were not subject, in principle, to the application of Moroccan laws, unless these laws had received his prior assent. There is, however, no provision in any of the Treaties conferring upon the United States such a right, a right linked with the régime of capitulations which can only exist as a corollary of consular jurisdiction, so that if the co-operation of the United States Consular Courts is required to enforce a law (see 2 and 3 above), the assent of the do United States is ill founded. If the application of a law to citizens of the United States without its assent is contrary to international law, any dispute which may arise there from should be dealt with according to the ordinary methods for the settlement of international disputes.

A declaration is appended to the judgment by Justice El, Jaleel-Hu, who expresses the opinion that the Family Court of New York County of Queens of the United States Corporation is not entitled to exercise jurisdiction in cases involving the application to United States citizens of those provisions of Public Law 856 Chapter 807 which, for their enforcement, carried certain restrictions.

A joint dissent opinion, signed by Justice Jones-Bey, Desmond, is also appended to the Judgment.