Moorish Temple members suing the Chicago Police

[morrand]

A case removed to the Northern District of Illinois, 12-cv-8996, has been filed by three members of the Moorish Science Temple against the City of Chicago and two police officers, alleging that the police falsely arrested them in the course of a traffic stop on the City's south side.

The plaintiffs allege that, after being stopped and asked for identification:

7. The Plaintiff attempted to explain to the defendant why the requested documentation was not mandatory and the Laws that support her position but was only rebutted with demands to open the vehicle door.

Subsequently, when another of the plaintiffs had shown up,

14. After shattering the window the defendants proceeded to vigorously remove the Plaintiff with force that should be reserved for actual threats to public safety viciously slamming her into a SUV (all in the presence of a handcuffed Sheik Lewis EL and other witnesses) with a savage brand of vigilante justice.
[...]
22. Furthermore, to add insult to injury the defendants have listed themselves as plaintiffs in a pending actions although no verified complaint or injured party has been manifested up to this point (Suit Nos. [omitted]) scheduled for 10/22/2012 at 9AM at Traffic Court [...].

The plaintiffs are requesting $7 million in damages, alleging false arrest, malicious prosecution, breach of contract, "745 ILCS 10/9-102 Claim" (this is a section of the Illinois municipal tort immunity statute), respondeat superior, injunctive relief (enjoining the Chicago Police from arresting or ticketing MST members while driving), negligence, and tortious interference.

The complaint is fascinating, partly because a single 2¢ stamp is affixed to each page, but mainly due to its explication of why driver's licenses are not legally required and why warrantless arrests, handcuffing, and usual booking procedures are all illegal. For example,

64. The true Supreme court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or, or [sic] calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate sate. NO LICENSE IS REQUIRED OF THE NATURAL INDIVIDUAL TRAVELING FOR SEASONAL BUSINESS, PLEASURE AND TRANSPORTATION." --Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca.

It would also be interesting to see how many times they attempt to link this to the recent Anthony Abbate case (there are already some allegations in the complaint of a standing conspiracy to cover up false arrests).

[fortinbras]

The case cited, Wingfield v. Fielder (Cal.App. 1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 209, 105 Cal.Rptr 619, dealt with a pilot's license. It did NOT deal with drivers licenses, nor did it suggest that pilots of airplanes didn't need licenses, but it did deal with the owner/pilot of a private crop dusting plane whose license was at risk of revocation.

[Burnaby49]

I read the case and it doesn't remotely support any argument they are making. The pilot wasn't in court claiming he didn't need a government issued license, he was fighting to keep it.

[notorial dissent]

I read the case and it doesn't remotely support any argument they are making. The pilot wasn't in court claiming he didn't need a government issued license, he was fighting to keep it.

Well, of course not. That would have taken all the fun out of it, not to mention being rational and reasonable. At least it sort of had something to do with the matter at hand rather than totally being made up out of whole sovrun cloth, as is usually the case.

Sounds pretty much like the run of the mill sovrun, "right to travel", "license not required", "everything is a contract", "there has to be an injured party before anyone can legally act", and the "2¢ stamp" gives their documents some extra special authority and significance magic mumbo jumbo. Were the documents signed in red ink and sealed with a thumbprint, that would be the final magic incantation, and if not seriously impairs their effectiveness. I'm surprised they didn't try to serve the officers with their "affidavit of truth" or "notice of right" when they were stopped, maybe they haven't gotten to that chapter yet. The only thing we're really missing so far is them claiming they are foreign ministers and therefore exempt from arrest.

I do not predict this is going to go or end well for the plaintiffs, either in Fed Civil court, was there any indication as to why this got inflicted on the Feds in the first place, or in IL criminal court where most of it will probably be decided, and I will bet there is a long raft of charges that either starts or ends with resisting arrest. My best guess is that they magically parlayed what would have been a minor traffic ticket into what may well be a felony beef by the time they were done. So very not bright.

[fortinbras]

The Moorish Science Temple sect goes back about a hundred years and Farrakhan's Nation of Islam has its roots in that sect. Its belief system is a hodgepodge of claims, some contradictory and some showing a spectacular disdain for history and geography. Its membership is mostly in big northern cities, like NYC and Detroit and Chicago, with a very substantial portion of its adherents in prison. Primarily it claims all sorts of immunities - including total exemption from the income tax and from needing a license to drive - supposedly arising from a 18th century treaty with Morocco (which says nothing of the kind), an alleged will by Lincoln (like the Emperor's New Clothes, seen only by the initiated), and their own "Zodiac Constitution" (which apparently they keep secret from outsiders). They not only deny their US citizenship but they (or many of them, when in trouble) try to claim diplomatic status and have not been timid about making such claims even in court. They seem to have absorbed a good deal of militia and sovrun mythology about the law as well.

[wserra]

The complaint is about what you'd expect, but two things exceed the usual inanity standard. First, alongside the caption, right under where the docket number would appear once the case is filed, appear the words "IN ADMIRALTY". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought the wacko battle cry was "Admiralty Bad!" I always thought that any good sovrun would always proceed in that holiest-of-holies, the common law. It looks as though these guys may be attempting to remedy the fact that they don't have both oars in the water.

Second, look at ¶ 57. The "Sheikess" apparently claims that the cops raped her. Raped? I mean, by this point we've waded through 56 paragraphs of banal tripe. We've read about how the evil Chicago cops actually demanded identification from a driver without probable cause. A Sergeant barked orders regarding her. When her buddies arrived and started to interfere they were (gasp) arrested. Finally, when she refused to get out of her car, they arrested her, which "violated ... [her] access to religious freedom". These guys apparently have an Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt never suffer thyself to be arrested." Then, forty paragraphs later, we find, "Oh, yeah, and they raped me."

I believe that. Don't you?

[notorial dissent]

Just about as much as I'd believe anything else they claimed at this point.

OK, this is in Cook County Dist Ct, not Fed Dist, are we talking about two separate cases then?

And to paraphrase WES, GAH!!!! what a load of tripe.

[AndyK]

Anyone else suspect a competency hearing in the near future?

[fortinbras]

The competency hearings seem to be indicative of judges who are unfamiliar with the sovrun gibberish; they assume that the gibberish is the result of an individualized defect. It's to the sovrun's advantage to have the stage set, when their case goes crashing down, to have the court inclined to believe a plea of diminished capacity.

But, in at least a few instances, the courts (or the appeal courts above them) recognize sovrun nonsense for what it is, mass marketed mythology, and the litigants are not hearing voices in their head as much as reciting what they have been taught to say. Those courts don't waste time on the possibility of diminished capacity but consider throwing the book at the sovruns to discourage imitatators.

[morrand]

OK, this is in Cook County Dist Ct, not Fed Dist, are we talking about two separate cases then?

Same case. The City filed to remove the state case to federal court (under §1441(b) and (c)).

The other thing that's off about this case--well, ONE other thing--is in the county circuit clerk's docket number stamp, where it says, "Fraud" for the class of case. Maybe they couldn't find "Admiralty" under the "Commercial Litigation" grouping on the county's form cover sheet.

[fortinbras]

Unlike some other sovruns, the Moors seem very willing to take on the police or govt in court. There are several instances of the Moors, as a group, suing the police or the prison authorities or sometimes a city govt.

[notorial dissent]

I'm sure the Fed is just thrilled this piece of tripe has been shuffled off to them. i just wasn't sure if we were talking about the same two cases.