It's a neat summary of the sovcit brand of Moors, with some gems:
Judge Posner also goes to some effort to distinguish the Moorish Science Temple of America (MSTA) from the sovcits claiming it as justification for all kinds of foolishness.Other groups claim that their Moorish nationality gives them the status in the United States of an indigenous people, although the logic behind this claim is deeply obscure. See id. Renita Bey teaches that Europeans are latecomers and Moors never granted them citizenship. Washitaw Nation Comes Under Investigation, Intelligence Report, Southern Poverty Law Center (June 15, 1999), http://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/ ... estigation. She teaches her followers that they are “Muurs” from “Muu” who traveled to North America before Africans did, when the world had only one continent.
Now, there are reasons to distinguish the MSTA from its more wayward adherents. One of those became clear in April, when the decision in Nettles-Bey v. Williams came out, also from the 7th Circuit. In that case, Mr. Nettles-Bey (who, despite the surname, is neither a Moor nor apparently a sovcit) was arrested for squatting in a house in South Holland, Illinois, at the invitation of Sabeel El-Bey (who may have been both, though the circuit court's opinion stops short of saying). Mr. Nettles-Bey claimed that he had been arrested on the basis of his surname alone, alleging that the arresting officers were trying to drive the Moors out of town. This would not be surprising—an awful lot of Moorish paper in the Cook County Recorder's office seems to originate from that end of the county, anyway—but the courts were not entirely enthused about the arresting officers' attempts to invoke immunity in the face of accusations they arrested Mr. Nettles-Bey based chiefly on his (presumed) religious affiliations.The MSTA home office, located in Washington D.C., has issued a statement clarifying that the organization is neither
“a Sovereign Citizen movement [n]or a Tax Protestor Movement” and that it was not founded “for its members to become anarchist or conspiracy theorist[s].” Moorish Science Temple of America, Statement on Radical and Subversive Fringe Groups (July 15, 2011), http://msta1913.org/Statement_Radical_Moors.pdf. A MSTA temple in Georgia denounces sovereign-citizen propaganda as “completely asinine” and asks that Moors not “adopt the ideals of these European groups who at their core, hate [Moors’] very existence.” Frequently Asked Questions, Question 1, Moorish Science Temple of America (Georgia), moorishsciencetemple.org/faqs/. ...
Although the Moorish Science Temple does not buy the “sovereign citizen” line, many of its members do. Many of them argue, without any basis in fact, that as a result of eighteenth-century treaties the United States has no jurisdiction over its Moorish inhabitants, who are therefore under no obligation to pay taxes. That is Bey’s position, but he does not explain how it entitles him to an $11.5 billion refund from the State of Indiana and/or its subdivisions.
Back to Judge Posner: his opinion closes with:
This seems ambivalent to me: is the MSTA actually responsible for this kind of foolishness, or not? If it's just a squatters' racket masquerading as a religious organization, it probably earns a certain degree of disrespect from the police and the courts. But if it's truly a religious organization that's just being misused by some to justify clogging up the courts with ridiculous demands, it seems unjust to pin it up as the "principal institutional establishment" of sovereign citizenry. That badge is debatable, anyway.Although we have discussed the MSTA at some length, our aim was to introduce readers who may not be familiar with the “sovereign citizen” movement to its principal institutional establishment. We do not mean to task the district judges of this circuit with having to delve into the history of every particular organization involved in every case before them. Often the organization either played no significant role in the events leading up to the case or if it did, nevertheless it was an organization already well known to the court. The unusual feature of this case is that the sovereign-citizen movement and its institutions, such as MSTA, are at once sources of difficult litigation and not well known outside the sovereign-citizen movement.