The Hatewatch blog is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights organization.

Judge Ignores ‘Martian law,’ Tosses ‘Sovereign Citizen’ Into Slammer

By Robert Steinback on July 20, 2011 - 2:54 pm, Posted in Sovereign Citizens

This Georgia judge had heard just about enough nonsense from a “sovereign citizen” charged in a scheme to steal a house.

Rockdale County Superior Court Judge David Irwin repeatedly advised Akeem Kwame – a self-described “Moorish national” charged with mortgage fraud for falsely claiming ownership of a house in Conyers, Ga. – to get a lawyer or accept a public defender.

And Kwame repeatedly rejected that advice. It was time for trial.

“It’s a simple question,” Irwin told Kwame on Monday, according to the Rockdale News. “Are you ready for trial, yes or no? It’s a yes or no. After that you may explain.”

Sovereign citizens are not given to straight answers. They believe they are not subject to government or law enforcement authority, and typically rely on convoluted, often incomprehensible pseudo-legal gobbledygook to assert their immunity. Moorish nationals are sovereigns who claim to be members of an indigenous black tribe independent of U.S. jurisdiction.

“Judge, I conditionally accept your offer to continue this once I am presented with the documentation so I can inspect any accusatory original instruments for my inspection,” replied Kwame, 48, also known as Gregory Ross of Covington, Ga.

Annoyed by Kwame’s non-answer, Irwin tossed the suspect – who had been free on bond pending trial – into a holding cell to ponder his options. A few hours later, the judge offered Kwame one last chance to request an attorney – and made clear he’d had it with the legal shenanigans.

“As far as the Moor Nations, or Martian law, we’re going to go on Georgia law,” Irwin said. “As based upon the Georgia statutes, as done by the Georgia Legislature, you have a right to a trial on those issues. That’s it. I’m not doing Moorish law. … I’m not doing paper law. I’m doing Georgia law. … I have given you opportunities, I have given you offers, and you have refused. … You’re not free to go. A jury will be picked for you today.”

Kwame seemed bewildered. “You’re placing the occupant of the executor office of the Akeem Kwame [trust] in custody? Is that what you’re saying?”

“I’m going to place Akeem Kwame and anybody else that doesn’t respond [in custody]. Your imaginary friend. You and the Grand Poobah of the Moor Nation if that happens to be you. ”

Asked if he understood his constitutional right to a lawyer, Kwame told Irwin, “I waive those constitutional rights because that Constitution is not in my jurisdiction. I am an American foreign national. I am not an American citizen.”

After a few more minutes of this, an exasperated Irwin finally ordered Kwame taken to jail and canceled the trial until the state could do a psychological evaluation.

“That is not my wish today, judge,” Kwame said as he was being escorted away. “Let the record reflect, I did not give the court jurisdiction to take me into custody against my free will ….”

  • Shantell

    For any Caucasian that knows law knows that this is moorish land, & that u guys came in 1492 thus after. If anyone should leave, I think it should be the Europeans. If they don’t have a green card or naturalization, they shouldn’t be in our land.

  • Eleanore

    I’m gone to convey my little brother, that he should also visit this website on regular basis to obtain updated from latest news update.

  • Ameralmayo el


  • Ameralmayo el

    The FAUD that is fake jugde did is agaist a nateral persons man made rights and this person is in his country the jugde is not in his and they should deport the fake judge and his cronyssend the us bach to the pope and crown that own it out side our land
    There may be much truth to the claim that the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal constitution was instigated by the legal professionals’ trade union, now known as The American Bar Association. Many facts support the claim that this “Bar” monopoly was established in Christian America, immediately after Lincoln’s (un)Civil War, to create and substitute a ‘colorless’ system of uniformed general slavery to replace the previous system of black slavery. This was to have been implemented by guaranteeing a monopoly of the courts for their own member attorneys, judges, and Municipal Corporations (City, County, and State). This monopolizing and unlawful labor union, The Bar Association, has forbidden anyone but their own exclusive member attorneys to give legal advice or representation, which has prevented any Good and Lawful Christian from being assisted in these purported ‘Courts of Law’ by a non-union lawyer or by a “non-lawyer”, as used in their own terminology.

    Lawyers (Attorn-ers) — Just a Poem …

    Law… could still be as simple as the Ten, set down in stone away back when. Trial… could still be a simple chain of events, of un-embellished testimony and evidence.

    Alas… simple Laws didn’t provide enough bread, to keep the old time Barrister’s fed. So… somewhere back in the mists of olden times, proto lawyers (Attorn-ers) decided,

    “We can rake in more dimes!” “If we write the Laws in such a way, “The fools will have to pay our exorbitant fee, if they want any chance of staying… Free!”

    Thus began our contorted Legal System, ending any semblence of common sence or reason. ‘Lawyers’ (attorn-ers) … had come upon the Earhtly scene, and from that day on… ‘LAW’has become obscene

    Lawyers (attorn-ers) … are really a totally useless group. Their only function… to invent and dispense Bull poop. Spewing out reams of blarney and hocus pocus, to ensure ‘Truth and Justice’stay just out of focus.

    When Lawyers (attorn-ers) can’t make enough in the Court, they seek out the ‘Employer of Last Resort’. They’ll troll about for ANY political offers, too more lavishly swill from the Public coffers!

  • Darius Thomas

    this is the moors country so how do a judge have da right to put them in jail

  • BelievingIsDangerous

    I’m curious, how many among us are experts in history, the law, the statutes, and therefore are qualified to speak to the legitimacy or the accuracy of our understanding? Speaking for myself, I’ve been studying the so-called “Sovereign” movement for over 5 years and continually confirm that the more I learn the greater my awareness is of my ignorance and it seems to increase in congruent proportion as well. I have found that many hold sacred the teachings of their schools, churches and selected references through which they obtained their knowledge.

    I understand completely. Because to think otherwise would be to shatter your whole reality potentially and in that instance you have to start from a dark void rebuilding the world around you. I know because I used to say, in reference to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, “those people should be ashamed or evaluated…have they no sense of respect for the victims’ families?” It was just by chance that I happened upon some very comprehensive materials that asked questions pertaining to the event and provided mainstream sources to supplement their queries. Quickly I was faced with a belief-threatening proposition. I now maintain that those that believe the official reports and dismiss the conspiracy theory are likely not willing to let go of (in Gore terms) the convenient truth and may never humor anything that might challenge their cozy reality. Again, I get it.

    I, on the other hand, in 4th grade stopped standing for the pledge of allegiance because I didn’t feel being compelled to swear loyalty was right. You earn the favor of your supporters by merit and not by force or conditioned behavior. Adding to this, I loudly voice my position that I do NOT support our troops. I know I just struck a nerve with many on that one. But this is, in part, my point. When our elected leaders decided that we should invade a sovereign nation against international law, treaties and without constitutional authority, that should reveal to you that the law is of no concern to them.

    Now, I know it was an emotional time and many of you probably endorsed the idea. I never did. Why? Because unlike many of you (I’m in no way claiming to be better), I don’t buy into the idea of separating the human race and I believe humans are humans and killing them is wrong. If everyone takes just a step toward the truth of what acted as the catalyst for that massacre still going on today, I wonder would there be an equal amount of mob mentality once we learned that the culprits were white and American and Israeli (in my humble opinion). The government lied and covered up many facts regarding the subject and that is record of fact, like it or not. Are they interested in truth, justice and the American way? I guess that depends on your definition.

    The not so recent bailouts is another insight into your beloved system. Any of you who might have been against it? Do you even have any idea the corruption, collusion and abuse of power that was involved there. Do you know how much was robbed from the people? And do you see any glaring deficiencies in justice as it is dispensed?

    You’re living amid Corporatism and it would appear that yes, you and your government have corporate status (if for no other reason because real humans and fictitious entities by maxim of law cannot contract with one another) if you are a U.S. citizen. But that is your choice. The government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. I read that somewhere. Hmm…anyone know where? The U.S. citizen is the make-believe you that affords you the ability to contract with other make-believe “persons.” It also diminished your status as Sovereign state Citizen to a government created debt slave with civil rather than unalienable rights.

    This is some of the “garbage” and “gobbledy-gook” that is being fomented by these terrorists you abhor so much. Now what I speak with apparent authoritative tone is in fact hearsay or conjecture admittedly when it comes from myself. I have not read every possible reference and cross-reference to dispute or confirm absolutely. Frankly, I am amazed that anyone has the time to devote to a fraction of the necessary reading to get a handle on what is or is not true. And even with that luxury, legalese is written in such a complex manner that to comprehend a minute amount would require an education that, judging from the scores of grammatical and spelling errors of those who have posted, is beyond the level of our competency.

    Freedom should be simple. I realize that we as a people have ourselves to blame. But it’s because we have exalted government so that when anything happens, we whine government do something. Sometimes it’s none of their business.

    If you still believe that you’re not property, ask yourself: Apart from monetary enrichment, why does the government require that you wear a seat belt? Or why do they mandate that you have car insurance? Could it be that as property they own, you are a liability in the public and as such are their responsibility? You think they care about your safety? They do. A farmer cares about his cow. A super-farm or mega-farm cares with less sentimentality. They will speed to catch you speeding to write you a ticket for doing what they just did that endangered an equal amount of the public to an equal degree.

    You have been deceived and like the house slaves of our regrettable past, you are willing to sell out your own kind for the favor of Master. Massa! Dem haz done dat! Don’t you go talkin’ no ill words about Massa! I show do thank god dat Massa is my boss. I show know I would jus make a mess o things if’n I’s gibben my freedoms.

    I’m curious, how many among us are experts in history, the law, the statutes, and therefore are qualified to speak to the legitimacy or the accuracy of our understanding?

    As an agnostic I would say: I only know that I don’t know anything. And as one was reported as saying:
    Do unto others as thou would have done to thyself
    & Judge not, lest thee be judged.
    Love your neighbor as yourself

    Sorry to stray. The man, if he stole, wronged his brother. That under any law system is a crime. Absent a victim, crimes are manufactured by the state and generate revenue for the corporations posing as government. It’s business and it’s applicable to those “persons” who have submitted applications to be employed by the corporation… not applicable to a “man” or a “woman.”

    Unless I’m wrong.

  • Ignorance 101

    These comments have strayed pretty far from the real subject here. Let’s face some facts here people.

    Firstly @ Mr Black…. Saying there is genetic markers that link 2 races of people together does not denote an indigenous right or qualify you for sovereignty. IE: Just because African Blacks share genetic similarity to American Natives does not make them the same or prove birthright. Studies have shown that there are also genetic distinctions between the two races as well, this information just isn’t published (or most likely simply ignored) by groups that want to use incomplete science to create a “Legal” argument that supports their cause.

    Secondly, creating the argument that he had legal right to seize property he had no rights to (Other than apparently his self justified theft of said property AFTER He sent paperwork to the original owner, claiming he was a banker and asking her to sign the quitclaim deed, then forged documents and falsely identified himself as the homeowners husband in an attempt to modify the loan), while interesting, has no foothold in legality. It’s simply a justification for a theft backed up by poorly informed people who really don’t know any more about law than what they learned on Youtube…..

    While Sovereignty is a real and tangible thing, it’s also a widely abused goal by groups and individuals in order to escape the requirements of Citizenship. Obey Laws, be taxed, be productive in your own right. It’s clear that it’s much easier to seize a property and claim right to it than work and pay for it. Most of these groups don’t feel the need to prove their birthright, and instead use bunk science and propaganda to validate their point of view.

    Personally, if I were you, Mr Black, I would not decry White Supremacists and then Espouse Black Supremacist teachings. Frankly, that just calls into question everything you say. This Country may be run as a corporation, but it’s kept that way by Bigoted Racists, the Ignorant, and the Apathetic. The color of your skin does not entitle you to anything in this society, color is just used by the politically strong to keep us weak and fighting against one another. It’s clear that this tactic is quite effective by some of the posts here. Nonetheless, your personal racist beliefs do not make a legal argument, nor have you linked them to anything about this case.

    To all of you who say Akeem Kwame should be kicked out of this country or incarcerated for his OPINIONS: You should be ashamed of yourselves. I couldn’t think of anything less American than jailing people for their beliefs. That’s the true slippery slope we all sit on. How long after that might any of you be considered a “Dangerous Radical” and jailed without cause? If you think it’s an impossibility you might want to rethink your “Love it or leave it” agenda. Alot of positive changes have been made since this country began by people who did love this country and didn’t leave it.

    Should he be tried in the court? Yes. He has not established “Sovereignty” in any way, and is therefore a United States Citizen and under jurisdiction of the laws of this country. The judge asking he go through psychological testing is just his way of covering his bases and ensuring his judgement is not quickly overturned. It’s clear from his comments he doesn’t think he is dealing with someone who has psychological problems, but with someone he thinks of as possibly an idiot. Spend enough time in the courtroom and you’ll learn.

    In this case, throwing him in jail had the desired effect. Upon returning to the court after 2 weeks in jail Akeem Kwame apologized for wasting the courts time and agreed to hire a lawyer. I have no doubt, in time, he will be found guilty of the crimes he’s accused of (charges he doesn’t deny himself, he just feels he is immune to the law) and sent to jail for legitimate reasons.

  • Vetta

    First of all he committed a crime … stealing someone is taking a lost meaning their is a victim so therefore they got him. When u are sovereign you come in peace and yet uphold the law. I declare my soverignty when they try and take my rights away I am a queen how dare u tell me what I cant do if im not hurting anyone Im free. Im no ones property and u should never place no one above but God. All these years of brain washing the people are afraid of a government that works for us we put them there we pay themm to sit on there buttocks fat checks while we work hard for pennies and if u make alot they taking alot of it so how can you WIN. Time to WAKE UP FORGET COLOR REGARDLESS WHAT COLOR YOU ARE YOU ARE ALL SLAVES. JESUS SAID HOW CAN U TAX A LAND THAT BELONGS TO MY FATHER. THOSE WHO ARE LOST GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE 14 th amendment to me the whole corporation is a BIG GANG. WAKE UP PEOPLE YOU JUST A NUMBER FOR TRACKING AND MONEY. ONCE WE ALL UNDERSTAND THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE GOD THAT WE ALL PRAY TO AND STOP SEPERATING EACH OTHER BECAUSE OF RELIGION WHAT WAS GOD NAME HIS COLOR DO IT MATTER WE NEED TO COME TOGETHER AND LIFT EACH OTHER AS A NATION COME ON PEOPLE THIS WHAT KEEPS THEM IN BUSINESS OUR SEPERATION. #revolution going to come from our children because this generation is 2 afraid the young would teach the old how its done God bless all

  • egol

    this truth has brought so much life to my blood I’ve just started studing and researching moors so far it has been wonderful, truth I started w/u tube, birth certificates, UCC,moorish,black law dictionary, google,dictionaries to define terms you think u know yale university lib online the constitutions, indian law, kjv, these are a people rob and …none say restore… I SAY RESTORE


    I am a natural born sovereign of the Moorish Empire; my Moorish ancestors have lived in this land for thousands of years. My nation Morocco is the first country whose head of state publicly recognize the independence of the United States of America and in 1787 a Treaty of Peace and Friendship was signed in Marrakech Morocco and ratified in 1836. It is still in force making it the longest unbroken treaty in American history.

  • michael_collins

    Actually, there is a lot of undue hostility of on this article. The issue of sovereignty is a legitimate one. America is founded upon British common law and the Founding Fathers were lawyers. We separated from Church and State, but still recognize God as a legal point of authority which we derive natural rights. The natural rights of persons which consent to be governed in exchange for the protection of the State is the foundation of the United States.

    The Caveat: Who is a person? Until the 20th Century it was White Men who were Persons. If you were not a person you were somone who is consented to rule by benefits granted by the State, who dictated your legal status.

    The Colonies in and of themselves were granted ability to govern and do commerce by extended corporate royal charters, which derived their authority form Kings and the Pope.

    In separation “Self Evident” natural rights under direct authority of a non denominational supreme God, the United States cut out the middle man and legally separated from Europe, and then bought up the other corporate bodies in North America. Anyone can create a Bill and if a period of time passes the bill is accpeted unless it is disputed. I can give you a bill for 10k as a business and attempt to collect if you do nothing, and then sell it to a debt collector. The Bill of Rights , and “Declaration” of Independance uses the Roman/British/Vatican system of that recognizes God as supreme authority.

    The British Army could make the United States withdraw their declarations and so they became Sovereign States that had to be recognized under the existing British Empire which at the time pretty much controlled the world.

    The rest of the European concessions added the land of their colonies to the independent ones from Great Britain. The question now is that if you benefit from implied consent of U.S. Citizenship to be governed you gain Nationality and have consequences from your status. Most people know that their were Native American nations that had legitimate title to govern themselves and these Nationhood was recognized with official treatise as foreign nations, although these treatise were broken and conceded with the status that comes with living on a reservation.

    One nation that the U.S declared a protective treaty that still stands is from the Treaty of Morocco. It is downplayed that Muslim and African nations (especially North African) had contributed to the early U.S and had protected Diplomatic status on American soil Being “negro” or “black” and a “slave” in was as much a regulation of legal personhood rather than the only fact that one was of Black African Descent.

    The Moorish Temple in America was a recognition that those of african/muslim descent are given rights of “person: and also that of a protected sovereign foreign national. Some do this by declaration, many do this by research into their own family history. This is why many names that are considered “black” in the united states, malik, hakeem, kareem etc are actually Arabic because of the large intermixed population from Muslim African nations.

    The loss of any protected status largely happend as a result of reconstruction, where african americans were recognized persons and even held political positions, until virtually all were once regulated to the status of “negroe”. Race in america soley by color has always been a legal distinction, because their is no other reference to claim of status by national origin alone for most people. Titles of nobility became replaced by race, class and gender.

    Legal personhood was granted to “negroes” in the 1960’s, but Noble Drew Ali asserted himself as a Moorish national under the Treaty of Morocco. Whether others declare themselves Moorish, or use claim of right by ancestry, what they are attempting to do has historical precedent. Others that attempt to become sovereign of their own accord, must know exactly what they are doing or they are incurring debt and use of services of the government on whose land they reside and do commerce in, and subject to punishment if debt and crimes are committed.

    Whether one agrees or disagrees with the idea of becoming “stateless”, it is not that outlandish when the entire legal history of the western world takes authority that consent to be governed is implied by the granting of “personhood’ (rather than being chattel, or moveable property) with the state taking its authority from God Almighty. All Grammar and Spelling errors are mine. Go read a book.

  • Artimus Primatha

    If you knew anything about the origins of law, Kwame isn’t speaking gibberish.

  • zuma

    There is a legitimate question as to who the sovereign authority in the USA is and who is the ultimate authority.
    The people individually and severely created a Constitution in which they delegated a govt to fulfill duties . Those duties were to protect the people by use of arms when necessary, to provide the general welfare etc.
    However, what if govt doesn’t obey of fulfill the duties given it?
    Under our framework, it isn’t govt that is sovereign but the people who created it! Therefore if govt fails to do what the those who created it intended them to do, they those same people have not only the duty but the power to do what must be done.

    Somehow in America we have forgotten this. We seem to believe that govt is the master and not the people. Yet juries are supreme in decisions not govt by use of courts. The people set the morality both for their states. cities. towns and the federal govt as well.

    The people in California recently decided that gay marriage is illegal in California. They can also inform the federal govt that it is illegal under the sovereign authority of the people.
    Govt cant use a Constitution given them by that same sovereign authority to not abide by the will of the sovereigns of the state. The people simply didn’t delegate that authority to any govt .and they surely didn’t put it into their Consitution!
    Who or what is sovereign in America? Is it the people who created the Constitution and a govt or is it govt and Constitution created by those same people? IN creating a Constitution the people delegated authority to the govt but they never relinquished their right to remove that authority, abolish the Constitution and decide who shall and shall marry in America@

  • Reality

    True Moorish American know how to defend themselves under the rule of Law, while this is and example of what happens to African Americans that haven’t studied and Legally Claimed there Moorish Nationality. you cant use this science as a tool. if you have not claimed your Birthrights first.