Amendment No 6 To The Forbearance Agreement: Fill & Download for Free

Islamic texts do NOT say that non-believers must be killed.You see, many people read the Quran without understanding the full context.Verse Q. 9:5 is often quoted as an example of Islam’s mandate to violence, because by itself, that is what it sounds like.But let us examine the surrounding verses.The sura no 9 begins with the offer of immunity to those non-believers with whom a treaty had been ratified earlier (Q. 9:1). It is therefore clear that the revelation is driven by a historical (or external) context. But as we will see, examining the verse merely in conjunction with the surrounding text (the internal context), will suffice to dissolve much of the stigma associated with it.• Q. 9:1 (A declaration of) immunity for those idolaters with whom you have a treaty.• Q. 9:2 Travel freely in the land for four months, and be aware that you cannot escape God and that God will confound the non-believers.• Q. 9:3 And a proclamation from God and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that God is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if you repent, it will be better for you; otherwise, be aware that you cannot escape God. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve.• Q. 9:4 Except those among the idolaters with whom you have a treaty, and who have not breached their obligations or supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfill your agreement with them till its term. Indeed, God loves the pious.Q. 9:5 Then when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them and take them (captive) and besiege them and lie in wait for them. But if they repent and establish worship and pay zakat (provision for the poor), let them go their way. Indeed, God is Forgiving, Merciful.• Q. 9:6 And if anyone among the idolaters seeks your protection (O Muhammad), let him have it so that he may hear the Word of God, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.• Q. 9:7 How could idolaters have a covenant with God and His messenger except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? As long as they are true to you, be true to them. God loves the pious.So what do we see here?The signatories to the treaty are given four months to consider their options (Q. 9:2). If they do not repent, that is, make suitable amends, the consequences could be serious (Q. 9:3). However, the announcement will not affect those who have been true to the covenant and have not supported the enemy in any way (Q. 9:4).By the time we arrive at Q. 9:5, it is clear that this verse is directed only at those who have either breached their agreements or aided the enemies of Islam – in other words, a small perfidious subset of hostile elements.There is not the slightest hint of a massacre that critics accuse this verse of. In the next verse, Q. 9:6, believers are told to provide sanctuary to the enemy if he finds himself in danger and to transport him to safety. And Q. 9:7 represents the crux of Islam’s rules for dealing with the enemy – be true to them as long as they are true to you. The benign and gracious side of these two verses and the fact that Q. 9:5 effectively addresses only the mischievous, completely negates suggestions of a licence for the wanton killing of non-believers’ as is often alleged.Now let us try an experiment. Let us delete all verses in the sura except We see a one-line statement, rather a command, requiring the faithful to embark on a wanton killing of people. That is exactly what happens when you read something out of context.That is why reading a single verse by itself without looking into the context shows the intent to distort the meaning intended by the Quran.************************************************************As for your second point, the much maligned verse speaks about punishment for a particular offence. There is no sanction for beating otherwise.And isn’t it strange that critics keep talking about Q. 4:34 but no one ever mentions Q. 64:14, which explicitly requires men to exercise forgiveness in the home? And that gives rise to a very important question – which has priority over the other: Q. 4:34 or Q. 64:14? For one thing, the former applies to a specific situation only, while there are no conditions attached to the latter. Add to that the Quran’s massive push for forgiveness and patience, it would seem that the Q. 64:14 has clear precedence over Q. 4:34.This is what Q. 64:14 says:Q. 64:14 Believers! Among your wives and your children, you (may) encounter (some) hostility. So be careful of them. But if you pass over their offences, forbear and forgive, indeed God is All-Forgiving and All-Compassionate.The Quran also requires forgiveness for all people.Q. 3:134 Those who give in ease as in hardship, those who suppress their anger and forgive men. God loves those who do good.Q. 42:37 And those who shun the worst of sins and indecencies and when they are angered, they forgive.Q. 42:43 And whosoever bears wrongs with patience and forgives reflects a true strength of character.Islam encourages the right to retaliate Q. 5:45, 16:126.So how can any sane person suggest that Islam permits the killing of non-believers.I have just given a few examples. There are a very large number of verses that speak of patience and forgiveness.Also please have a look at 2:263, 2:271, 3:159, 4:149, 7:199, 16:90, 28:77, 42:40, 42:41, 42:43, 42:44, to get the general drift.

the BIBLE LESSON ON USURY .....because the M.A.F.I.A. doesn't have to play by the same rules as you and me ! I GOT MY FINANCIAL EDUCATION IN NEW JERSEY AND THE BIBLE--Why is it legal to assess fees and interest either by credit card companies or even the IRS that were once illegal and considered usury rates, most associated with loan sharks?Many people wrongfully believe they can charge whatever amount of interest the market with bear. Unfortunately, that is not generally the case. In most circumstances, a non-exempt lender is restricted to collecting ten percent (10%) per year on a loan, even if the borrower begs and pleads to pay a higher rate of interest. My office routinely deals with victims of usurious loans, both borrowers and lenders….yes even lenders can be victims when they unknowingly loan moneyat a usurious rate because the penalties for usury can be significant. As we have seen a huge increase in these types of cases, I have updated this article (originally written in 2003) to provide a more in depth overview of California's law on interest rates, loans, promissory notes, and usury. In short, however, non licensed lenders can only charge ten percent (10%) interest a year (yes a year) on a a Loan, and if the interest rate is higher then it probably is usurious.What is Usury and What Makes a Loan Usurious?Usury is the charging of interest in excess of that allowed by law. California courts have held that "interest" includes anything of value that is received directly or indirectly by the lender from the borrower regardless of the nature or form of the consideration (e.g., fees, bonuses, commissions, and other miscellaneous charges).California's usury law, set forth in Article XV Section 1 of the California Constitution and codified in 10 different code sections, limits the amount of interest which can be charged on any loan, or forbearance, of money. A "forbearance" is the refraining from taking legal action to enforce a debt, right, or obligation. Oftentimes, a forbearance would describe the lender's agreement to extend the due date on an existing loan in return for an increased interest rate.Pursuant to California law, non-exempt lenders (the average individual) can charge a maximum of: (i) 10% interest per year (.8333% per month) for money, goods or things used primarily for personal, family or household purposes and (ii) for other types of loans (home improvement, home purchase of the date the loan is contracted for, or executed. In other words, the general rule is that a non-exempt lender cannot charge more than 10% per year (.8333% per month), unless there is an applicable exemption.It is the multitude of exemptions to California’s usury law that are strewn throughout various code sections (including the Civil Code, the Financial Code, the Insurance Code, etc..) that make California’s usury laws very complicated and difficult to understand. To complicate matters even more, Federal laws and regulations may also be applicable.Multiple California code sections govern the legal rate of interest that may be agreed upon including:CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1917-1917.006CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1917.060-1917.069CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1917.160-1917.168CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1917.610-1917.619CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL CODE SECTION 9201-9208CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONS CODE SECTION 25116 – 25118CALIFORNIA FINANCIAL CODE SECTION 22000-22064CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 5900-5909So When is a Loan Usurious?A loan will be deemed to be usurious when the interest charged exceeds the maximum amount prescribed by law. The lender's knowledge is immaterial. The plaintiff need not prove intent, and failure to know the law is no defense. In fact, even if the borrower proposes a high interest rate and drafts the note, a non-exempt lender will still be held liable for collecting on a usurious loan if the annual interest rate exceeds 10%.Are There Any Defenses to a Usury Claim?Absent an exception to the usury law (discussed below), there really are no defenses to a usury claim. Usury is usury. The lender either has, or has not, charged an illegal interest rate. For this reason, usury claims (even those that allege fraud) are very difficult to defend. As stated above, ignorance of the law is no defense. Likewise, even where the borrower pleads for a loan, sets the interest rate, drafts the promissory note, and both willingly and knowingly pays a usurious interest rate, the lender is still liable. However, it is possible through the agreement of both the lender and the borrower to correct a usurious loan, or forebearance. The California appellate court has held that a usurious agreement may be purged of its usury if the lender and borrower voluntarily and with full knowledge of the usurious nature of the initial loan enter into a new agreement and the lender credits the borrower with the amount of usurious interest paid in the previous transaction.So What Happens if a Loan is Deemed Usurious?If a loan is deemed to be usurious, the originator of a usurious loan may be subject to severe civil penalties. The borrower is generally entitled to the following cumulative remedies:the borrower can bring an action for money damages for ALL the money he has previously paid during the two year period prior to the filing of an action (not just the usurious amount);the borrower can seek damages equal to three times the interest paid during the 12 months prior to the filing of a lawsuit, and after filing of the lawsuit;the borrower can get a judgment to cancel all future interest that will become due for the remainder of the term of the loan; andin appropriate cases, where the lender's conduct is oppressive, fraudulent or malicious, the borrower may be able to recover punitive damages.The result is that a usurious loan may turn into an interest free loan with potentially costly damages and a potential for criminal liability. Any willful violation of the usury laws may also be a violation of Business & Professions Code § 17000, et. seq., which would expose the lender to criminal liability. If a court were to find that the lender knowingly, or willfully, charged a usurious interest rate, the lender may be found guilty of "loan sharking" which is a felony punishable by up to five years in jail.What about the principal? Even if a loan is deemed to be usurious, the lender is still entitled to receive the principal back and to retain any security for the loan.What Are Some of the Exemptions From California's Usury Law.The remainder of this article will set forth briefly some of the exemptions to California’s general usury law.1. Licensed Lending Institutions Are Generally Exempt From Usury.Most licensed lending institutions engaged in the business of making consumer and/or commercial loans such as banks, savings and loan, credit unions, finance companies, and even pawn brokers are exempt from California’s usury laws. See, California Financial Code §5102, §7675 §15000, §21000, §21200, §22002, §22009, and §22303; Home Owners Loan Act of 1933, 12 U.S.C.A §1464(5)(c)(4)(B) and the Building and Loan Association Act of 1931 (as amended).2. Loans Secured by Real Estate that are "Made or Arranged" by a Licensed Real Estate Broker MAY also be Exempt From Usury.Loans that are "made or arranged" by a California-licensed real estate broker and secured in whole, or in part, by a lien on real property MAY be exempt from California’s usury law if originated and negotiated properly. See California Civil Code §1916.1. Pursuant to California case law, the level of broker participation required to qualify for the exemption is not extraordinarily high, but has been increased over the years. Typically, to qualify for the broker arranged exemption to the Usury law, the real estate broker must do more than simply perform escrow activities on a loan that has already been negotiated and signed by the lender and borrower. To what extemt, goes beyond what can be set foth in this article.3. Loans Used To Purchase, Build or Improve Real Property MAY be Exempt.Real estate loans acquired to purchase real estate, construct a home or building, or to make improvements are sometimes not considered loans for personal, family or household purposes; typically a non-exempt lender must limit the interest collected to the greater of: (1) 10% per year, or (2) 5% plus the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco’s discount rate on the 25th day of the month preceding the earlier of the date the loan is contracted for, or executed. However, if the loan is “made or arranged” by a licensed real estate broker, as described above, then the lender may be exempt from the usury limits.4. Seller Financing – Seller Carryback Loans Are Exempt From UsuryIn California, when a seller of real estate finances the purchase for the buyer with a note secured by a deed of trust, the financing is commonly referred to as a seller carry back loan. When a seller finances a real estate purchase, the seller is acting as the bank or lender. Oftentimes, a seller will offer to carry back all, or a portion, of the purchase price in order to get the home sold, especially if the banks will not offer to lend the total amount of financing needed to fund the desired purchase price.In California, some courts have held that a seller carryback loan (a.k.a. purchase money debt, Time Price Doctrine) is not a loan, but a sale on credit. As a credit sale debt, a seller can carryback a note, secured or unsecured, and such may not be considered a loan subject to California's usury laws.5. Time payment contracts a.k.a. retail installment contracts and revolving accounts MAY also be exempt from the usury law.The Unruh Act set forth in California Civil Code §§1802.1, 1802.2, 1802.6 governs the financing of consumer goods (e.g. appliances, flooring, etc…) under a retail installment sales contract under which a seller finances the purchase of its consumer goods or services and the buyer agrees to pay in installments. The California Supreme Court recently held that if a bona fide retail credit sale is later restructured through the mutual agreement of the lender and borrower/purchaser , the credit-sale debt-restructuring settlement will be exempt from usury.Similarly, the Automobile Sales Finance Act (Civil Code §§2981 et. seq. ) regulates the maximum finance charges that automobile sellers may charge, although third-party financing arranged by the automobile seller is not subject to the Automobile Sales Finance Act.6. At present, at least in California, credit cards (Visa, MasterCard, Amex) are exempt from the usury law.7. Licensed pawnbrokers are exempt from the usury law; however, the California legislature has prescribed maximum interest rates pawnbrokers can charge.California Financial Code § 21000 defines a pawnbroker as any person "engaged in the business of receiving goods, including motor vehicles, in pledge as security for a loan." Financial Code § 21000 further provides that the maximum interest rate pawnbrokers may charge is 2.5% per month. A personal property broker, someone who lends money in exchange for a security interest in personal property, is subject to the same limits as a pawnbroker. The maximum interest rates for personal property brokers are essentially the same as those for pawnbrokers. See California Financial Code §22009 and §22303.8. A Loan Made to a California Business (corporation, or limited liability company) that has $2,000,000 or More in Assets OR that is for $300,000 or More MAY be Exempt From California’s Usury Law IF:(a) the lender and the borrower (or any of its officers, directors or controlling persons) have a pre-existing personal, or business relationship; or(b) the lender and the borrower by reason of their own business and financial experience, or that of their professional advisors, could reasonably be assumed to have the capacity to protect their own interests in connection with the transaction; and(c) the loan is not guaranteed by any individual, a revocable trust, or a partnership that has a general partner. See California Corporations Code §25118; and(d) the purpose of the loan is primarily for something other than personal, family, or household purposes.Conclusion.In California, a simple loan can turn into a disastrous event, even if there was no intent to violate the usury laws. Before borrowing, or more importantly, lending money consider the impact of the usury laws on the transaction and consult a licensed California attorney familiar with California's usury and finance laws as there are other laws that may come into play. A little bit of planning and forethought can prevent hefty legal bills and headaches. If you are a borrower, you should examine all loans received from non financial institutions to determine whether the usury laws can be used for your economic benefit. It is important to act quickly, however, as the statute of limitations is just two (2) years, and just One (1) year for those seeking treble damages.

The Torah is not an historical document but rather a book of faith and should be appreciated in that way. That said, Judaism is a religion and not a race. With that the majority of “Jews” that are encountered today find their origins in Poland not in North Africa as it often assumed.The Reichstag enacted the Nuremberg Laws in 1935 Germany racializing German citizens who were practitioners of the Hebrew faith. under these laws Germen identity became codified by religiosity. These laws were very similar to America’s “Negro Laws” in that they racialised pigmentation ( a polymer). A regime can racialise anything for sociopolitical and economic exploitation.Compare the “Nuremberg Laws” of Germany to the “Negro Laws” of America below. Both sets of laws were designed to racialize phenotype or specific appearances and or religious practices to oppress certain people usually for economic reason.These legal classifications created the notion of being “Jewish” as compared to being “black” and ”negro”The Nuremberg LawsHolocaust and Human BehaviorChapter 6HolocaustTransforming Germany in the 1930sViolence was a crucial tool of the Nazi government, but its leaders were also eager to show that they were acting within the framework of the law. As they worked to consolidate power and reshape Germany according to their racial ideals, Nazi leaders passed a number of new laws that redefined citizenship and laid the groundwork for a “racial state.”On September 15, 1935, at a party rally in Nuremberg, the Nazis announced two new laws that changed who could be a German citizen. The Reich Citizenship Law required that all citizens have German “blood.” As a result, Jews and others lost their rights to citizenship, which not only stripped them of the right to vote but also made them stateless. This meant that they could not get a valid passport for travel between countries or acquire a visa to leave Germany.The second law was called the Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor, which stated the following:In 1933, Jewish businessman Oskar Danker and his girlfriend, a Christian woman, were forced to carry signs discouraging Jewish-German integration. Intimate relationships between “true Germans” and Jews were outlawed by 1935.Moved by the understanding that purity of German blood is the essential condition for the continued existence of the German people, and inspired by the inflexible determination to ensure the existence of the German nation for all time, the Reichstag has unanimously adopted the following law, which is promulgated herewith:Article 1Marriages between Jews and subjects of the state of German or related blood are forbidden. Marriages nevertheless concluded are invalid, even if concluded abroad to circumvent this law.Annulment proceedings can be initiated only by the state prosecutor.Article 2Extramarital relations between Jews and subjects of the state of German or related blood are forbidden.Article 3Jews may not employ in their households female subjects of the state of German or related blood who are under 45 years old.Article 4Jews are forbidden to fly the Reich or national flag or display Reich colors.They are, on the other hand, permitted to display the Jewish colors. The exercise of this right is protected by the state.Article 5Any person who violates the prohibition under Article 1 will be punished with a prison sentence.A male who violates the prohibition under Article 2 will be punished with a jail term or a prison sentence.Any person violating the provisions under Articles 3 or 4 will be punished with a jail term of up to one year and a fine, or with one or the other of these penalties.Article 6The Reich Minister of the Interior, in coordination with the Deputy of the Führer and the Reich Minister of Justice, will issue the legal and administrative regulations required to implement and complete this law.The two new laws announced at Nuremberg made sharp distinctions between the rights and privileges of Germans and Jews. They also raised an important question: What determined who was and who was not a Jew? According to most Jewish teachings, an individual was defined as a Jew if he or she was born to a Jewish mother or formally converted to Judaism. If a Jew converted to Christianity, he or she was no longer considered Jewish by most Jews. The Nazis did not accept that definition. They regarded Jews as members of neither a religious group nor an ethnic group (defined by their cultural heritage). Instead, they regarded Jews as members of a separate and inferior “race.” Since, according to Nazi logic, “race” was not altered by conversion, people who were born Jewish would always be Jews regardless of their religious beliefs or practices.Though the Nazis believed that identity was biological, something “carried in the blood,” this idea had no scientific reality. Whether someone was German or Jewish could not be determined by medical or scientific tests. The question of defining German and Jewish identity was further complicated by the fact that there had been a great deal of intermarriage between the two groups, and there were thousands of people of mixed Jewish and non-Jewish ancestry, known to the Nazis as Mischlinge(“half-breeds” or “mixed-blood”).On November 14, 1935, the Nazi government officially defined who was a German and who was a Jew through an additional decree called the First Regulation to the Reich Citizenship Law. (Debates about how to classify Mischlinge went on for years and were never completely resolved.) It stated:Article 1Until further regulations regarding citizenship papers are issued, all subjects of German or kindred blood, who possessed the right to vote in the Reichstag elections at the time the [Nuremberg] Citizenship Law came into effect, shall for the time being possess the rights of Reich citizens. The same shall be true of those to whom the Reich Minister of the Interior, in conjunction with the Deputy of the Führer, has given preliminary citizenship.The Reich Minister of the Interior, in conjunction with the Deputy of the Führer, can withdraw the preliminary citizenship.Article 3Only the Reich citizen, as bearer of full political rights, exercises the right to vote in political affairs or can hold public office. The Reich Minister of the Interior, or any agency empowered by him, can make exceptions during the transition period, with regard to occupation of public office. The affairs of religious organizations will not be affected.Article 4A Jew cannot be a citizen of the Reich. He has no right to vote in political affairs and he cannot occupy public office.Jewish [government] officials will retire as of December 31, 1935. If these officials served at the front in the world war, either for Germany or her allies, they will receive in full, until they reach the age limit, the pension to which they were entitled according to the salary they last received; they will, however, not advance in seniority. After reaching the age limit, their pensions will be calculated anew, according to the salary last received, on the basis of which their pension was computed.The affairs of religious organizations will not be affected.The conditions of service of teachers in Jewish public schools remain unchanged until new regulations for the Jewish school systems are issued.Article 5A Jew is anyone who is descended from at least three grandparents who are racially full Jews. Article 2, para. 2, second sentence will apply.A Jew is also one who is descended from two full Jewish parents, if (a) he belonged to the Jewish religious community at the time this law was issued, or joined the community later, (b) he was married to a Jewish person, at the time the law was issued, or married one subsequently, (c) he is the offspring of a marriage with a Jew, in the sense of Section I, which was contracted after the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor became effective, (d) he is the offspring of an extramarital relationship with a Jew, according to Section I, and will be born out of wedlock after July 31, 1936.Article 6Requirements for the pureness of blood as laid down in Reich Law or in orders of the NSDAP [the Nazi Party] and its echelons—not covered in Article 5—will not be affected.Any other requirements for the pureness of blood, not covered in Article 5, can be made only by permission of the Reich Minister of the Interior and the Deputy Führer. If any such demands have been made, they will be void as of January 1, 1936, if they have not been requested by the Reich Minister of the Interior in agreement with the Deputy Führer. These requests must be made by the Reich Minister of the Interior.Article 7The Führer and Reich Chancellor can grant exemptions from the regulations laid down in the law.In time, the Nazis extended the Nuremberg Laws, as these laws institutionalizing Nazi racial theory came to be known, to include marriages between “Aryans” and other “racially inferior” groups. Nazi officials interpreted the wording to mean that relations between “those of German or related blood” and “Gypsies,” Afro-Germans, or their offspring were also forbidden. Some people within the Nazi government considered requiring “Aryans” to divorce their Jewish spouses, but they did not go through with this plan.Connection QuestionsHow do the Nuremberg Laws define what makes someone a “German”? How do they define Germany’s universe of obligation?How do the Nuremberg Laws reflect earlier ideas about racial difference and hierarchies (see Chapter 2, We and They)? How do they reflect what you have already learned about Nazi ideology?Why do you think Article 3 was included in the Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor? What idea might the law be implying?How did the Nuremberg Laws make it necessary for the Nazis to issue the First Regulation to the Reich Citizenship Law two months later? Why might it have been so complicated to figure out who was “Jewish” without these laws?The Nuremberg Laws meant that Jews could no longer define their identities for themselves. What does it mean to lose the right to define yourself? How was the problem confronting Germans of Jewish descent in 1935 similar to that faced by the Bear in reading, The Bear That Wasn’t in Chapter 1? How do the two differ?What happens when a government says that one part of your identity is more important than other parts?Negro Law and Legal DefinitionThe word Negro is used in the English-speaking world to refer to a person of black ancestry or appearance. The usage was accepted as normal, even by people classified as Negroes, until the Civil Rights movement. During the American Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, some African American leaders in the United States objected to the word, preferring Black, because they associated the word Negro with the long history of slavery, segregation, and discrimination. During the 1960s the term Negro became considered to be a so-called "ethnic slur"."Negro" superseded "colored" as the most polite terminology, at a time when "black" was more offensive. The United States Census Bureau announced that Negro would be included on the 2010 United States Census, alongside "Black" and "African-American," because some older Black Americans nevertheless self-identify with the term.ABRAHAM LINCOLN ON THE “NEGRO LAWS”Abraham Lincoln Represented a Moorish plaintiff from Portugal in William Dungey v. Joseph Spencer. Lincoln Successfully argued:“My client is not a Negro, though it is a crime to be a Negro–no crime to be born with a black skin. But my client is not a Negro. His skin may not be as white as ours, but I say he is not a Negro, though he may be a Moore.” “Mr. Lincoln,” interrupted Judge Davis, scarcely able to restrain a smile, “you mean a Moor, not Moore.” “Well, your Honor, Moor, not C.H. Moore,” replied Mr. Lincoln, with a sweep of his long arm toward the table where Moore and I sat. “I say my client may be a Moor, but he is not a Negro.”In its most general sense, the term “badge of slavery” therefore refers to indicators, physical or otherwise, of African Americans’ slave or subordinate status. As Professor George Rutherglen has pointed out, the phrase “badge of slavery” was used metaphorically as far back as the Roman Empire to refer to “evidence of political subjugation. See George Rutherglen, The Badges and Incidents of Slavery and the Power of Congress to Enforce the Thirteenth Amendment, in The Promises Of Liberty: The History And Contemporary Relevance Of The Thirteenth Amendment 163, 166 & n.23 (Alexander Tsesis ed., 2010) (citing P. Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals And The Histories bk. XV, at 31 (1952)) (recounting incident where a victorious general was asked to treat a conquered king so that he “might not have to endure any badge of slavery”); see also id. at n.19 (citing use of phrase during English Civil War).This is not the first time that Moors rejected the Negro/Black Badge, much earlier in 1790. On January 20, 1790, a petition was presented to the South Carolina House of Representatives from a group of four individuals who were subjects of the Moroccan emperor and residents of the state. They desired that if they happened to commit any fault amenable to be brought to justice, that as subjects to a prince allied with the United States through the Moroccan–American Treaty of Friendship, they would be tried as citizens instead of under the Negro Act of 1740. The Free Moors, Francis, Daniel, Hammond and Samuel petitioned on behalf of themselves and their wives Fatima, Flora, Sarah and Clarinda.[1]They explained how some years ago while fighting in defense of their country, they and their wives were captured and made prisoners of war by an African king. After this a certain Captain Clark had them delivered to him, promising they would be redeemed by the Moroccan ambassador residing in England, and returned to their country. Instead, he transported them to South Carolina, and sold them for slaves. Since then, “by the greatest industry,” they purchased freedom from their respective masters. They requested that as free born subjects of a Prince in alliance with the U.S., that they should not be considered subject to a state law (then in force) known as the negro law. If they be found guilty of any crime or misdemeanor, they would receive a fair trial by lawful jury. The matter was referred to a committee consisting of Justice John Faucheraud Grimké, General Charles Cotesworth Pinckney and Edward Rutledge.Edward Rutledge reported from the committee on the petition on the same day and the House agreed to the report, which read as follows Vizt: “They have Considered the same and are of opinion that no Law of this State can in its Construction or Operation apply to them, and that persons who were Subjects of the Emperor of Morocco being Free in this State are not triable by the Law for the better Ordering and Governing of Negroes and other Slaves.” Because the report was not forwarded to the state Senate for concurrence, it did not have the force of law but served as an advisory opinion offering the sense of the House. The report was later published in the Charleston City Gazette and the Charleston State Gazette of South Carolina. Click Here to read the Sundry Free Moors Act o 1790.Dr. Arica Coleman, an assistant professor at the University of Delaware who is of Rappahannock and African American descent, discussed how the term negro might actually be referring to an American Indian. According to her latest book, That the Blood Stay Pure, the term’s origins can be traced to medieval Italy where it was a classification of a skin color, not race. Additionally, Europeans often referred to indigenous populations of their communities as negroes. In the Portuguese colony of Brazil, Indians were called negros da terra meaning negroes of the land. Coleman pointed out during the conference that the early Virginia legislature identified Moors and negroes separately.See 6 Shocking Facts About Slavery, Natives and African AmericansIn New Jersey, we have learned from hard experience that although skin color is “public” in a sense, the state must nevertheless assert a compelling governmental interest before using preconceived notions about the implications of skin color to justify police conduct. The New Jersey State Constitution: A Reference GuideBy Robert F. Williams. “The public as a whole has a significant interest in ensuring equal protection of the laws and protection of First Amendment liberties.” Jones v. Caruso, 569 F.3d 258, 278 (6th Cir. 2009).The phrase badge of slavery: acquired a more specific range of meanings in American discourse referred to the skin color of African Americans. In some states and some courts, dark skin was presumptively a “mark or sign” of slave status. See MORRIS, supra note 49, at 21. State v. Whitaker, 3 Del. 549, 550 (1840); see also State v. Rash, 6 Del. 271, 274 (Del. Ct. Gen. Sess. 1867) (“As slavery was exclusively confined to the black or colored race, color became the badge or sign of servitude . . . .”).As a consequence, some legal restrictions that applied to slaves, like the bar on testimony in any case involving a white person, also applied to free blacks because they also wore the badge of slavery. Gerrit Smith, Editorial, THE LIBERATOR, March 7, 1835, at 39.There should be little question that the historical assumption that “black means criminal” continues to hold sway today. See, e.g. ARMOUR, supra note 65, at 2.Additionally, race based criminal suspicion, legally enforced through the Slave Codes, and was used to keep blacks in fear and in their “place” during slavery. HIGGINBOTHAM, IN THE MATTER OF, supra note 35, at 8.Criminality of the Negro was a central concept in numerous public-discourses. “Americans as a mass,” a 1915 editorial in The Crisis astutely observed,“regard . . . Negroes as criminals. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, “Editorial: Mohr,” The Crisis: A Record of the Darker Races 11 (1916): 244.White news papers tended to portray black Americans as especially lawless and the almost ubiquitous mention of (black) race in crime stories“tend[ed] to stamp the entire Negro group as criminals Chicago Commission on Race Relations. The Negro in Chicago: A Study of Race Relations and a Race Riot (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1922), 525Even efforts to legislatively combat lynch violence were accompanied by rhetorical constructions of black criminality. As the 1921, 1922 debate in the House of Representatives over a federal anti-lynching bill demonstrates, attempts to outlaw lynching were met with decrees from elected officials that such legislation would “encourage rape. Barbara Holden-Smith, “Lynching, Federalism, and the Intersection of Race andGender in the Progressive Era,” Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 8 (1996): 56.For a discussion of this dynamic modern society, see Patricia J. Williams Meditations on Masculinity, in Constructing Masculinity 238, 242 (Maurice Berger et al. eds `1995) (describing the function of the connection between race and crime and stating that this connection results in [a]ny black criminal becom[ing] all black men, and the fear of all black men becom[ing] the rallying point for controlling all black people”).One in four black men born since the late 1970s has spent time in prison. Ex-offenders are excluded from a wide variety of jobs, running the gamut from septic-tank cleaner to barber to real-estate agent, depending on the state. And in the limited job pool that ex-offenders can swim in, blacks and whites are not equal. For her research, Pager pulled together four testers to pose as men looking for low-wage work. One white man and one black man would pose as job seekers without a criminal record, and another black man and white man would pose as job seekers with a criminal record. The negative credential of prison impaired the employment efforts of both the black man and the white man, but it impaired those of the black man more. Startlingly, the effect was not limited to the black man with a criminal record. The black man without a criminal record fared worse than the white man with one. “High levels of incarceration cast a shadow of criminality over all black men, implicating even those (in the majority) who have remained crime free,” Pager writes. Effectively, the job market in America regards black men who have never been criminals as though they were. See The Black Family in the Age of Mass Incarceration“the crime-stained blackness of the negro” It is impossible to conceive of the Gray Wastes without first conceiving of a large swath of its inhabitants as both more than criminal and less than human. These inhabitants, black people, are the preeminent outlaws of the American imagination. Black criminality is literally written into the American Constitution—the Fugitive Slave Clause, in Article IV of that document, declared that any “Person held to Service or Labour” who escaped from one state to another could be “delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.” From America’s very founding, the pursuit of the right to labor, and the right to live free of whipping and of the sale of one’s children, were verboten for blacks. See The Black Family in the Age of Mass IncarcerationThe crime of absconding was thought to be linked to other criminal inclinations among blacks. Pro-slavery intellectuals sought to defend the system as “commanded by God” and “approved by Christ.” In 1860, The New York Herald offered up a dispatch on the doings of runaway slaves residing in Canada. “The criminal calendars would be bare of a prosecution but for the negro prisoners,” the report claimed. Deprived of slavery’s blessings, blacks quickly devolved into criminal deviants who plied their trade with “a savage ferocity peculiar to the vicious negro.” Blacks, the report stated, were preternaturally inclined to rape: “When the lust comes over them they are worse than the wild beast of the forest.” Nearly a century and a half before the infamy of Willie Horton, a portrait emerged of blacks as highly prone to criminality, and generally beyond the scope of rehabilitation. In this fashion, black villainy justified white oppression—which was seen not as oppression but as “the corner-stone of our republican edifice.” See The Black Family in the Age of Mass IncarcerationTo fortify the “republican edifice,” acts considered legal when committed by whites were judged criminal when committed by blacks. In 1850, a Missouri man named Robert Newsom purchased a girl named Celia, who was about 14 years old. For the next five years, he repeatedly raped her. Celia birthed at least one child by Newsom. When she became pregnant again, she begged Newsom to “quit forcing her while she was sick.” He refused, and one day in June of 1855 informed Celia that he “was coming to her cabin that night.” When Newsom arrived and attempted to rape Celia again, she grabbed a stick “about as large as the upper part of a Windsor chair” and beat Newsom to death. See The Black Family in the Age of Mass IncarcerationA judge rejected Celia’s self-defense claim, and she was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. While she was in jail, she gave birth to the child, who arrived stillborn. Not long after, Celia was hanged. Celia’s status—black, enslaved, female—transformed an act of self-defense into an act of villainy. Randall Kennedy, a law professor at Harvard, writes that “many jurisdictions made slaves into ‘criminals’ by prohibiting them from pursuing a wide range of activities that whites were typically free to pursue.” Among these activities were: learning to read, leaving their masters’ property without a proper pass, engaging in “unbecoming” conduct in the presence of a white female, assembling to worship outside the supervisory presence of a white person, neglecting to step out of the way when a white person approached on a walkway, smoking in public, walking with a cane, making loud noises, or defending themselves from assaults. Antebellum Virginia had 73 crimes that could garner the death penalty for slaves—and only one for whites. See The Black Family in the Age of Mass IncarcerationThe end of enslavement posed an existential crisis for white supremacy, because an open labor market meant blacks competing with whites for jobs and resources, and—most frightening—black men competing for the attention of white women. Postbellum Alabama solved this problem by manufacturing criminals. Blacks who could not find work were labeled vagrants and sent to jail, where they were leased as labor to the very people who had once enslaved them. Vagrancy laws were nominally color-blind but, Kennedy writes, “applied principally, if not exclusively, against Negroes.” Some vagrancy laws were repealed during Reconstruction, but as late as the Great Depression, cash-strapped authorities in Miami were found rounding up black “vagrants” and impressing them into sanitation work. See The Black Family in the Age of Mass IncarcerationThe courts have legitimated the common perception of blacks as criminals. Police may use race as a factor when developing probable cause. Additionally, police and immigration officials often target individuals of a specific race with policies such as street sweeps, gang profiles and border stops. Such practices “erase the identities of . . . people as individual human beings and instead defines them, on the basis of their race, as potential criminals.”21 Such policies are at their core essentialist because they are impossible to implement without relying on prevalent stereotypes. See The Constructed Identities of Asian and African Americans: A Story of Two Races and the Criminal Justice System Sheila A. Bedi∗Over the last 100 years, litigated cases have overwhelmingly revealed an implicit view of blacks as inferior, reaffirmed by the limitations imposed, or the tokenism used, to influence the jury selection process involving black jurors. Over the last 135 years the U.S. Supreme Court has used its elevated place to legally define the black race as the explicit “other.” “Negroes” were seen by the Court as “property” (Scott v. Sanford, 1857) or as an “emancipated” race (Strauder v. West Virginia 1880). They have been called the “inferior race,” as opposed to a “superior race” (Strauder V. West Virginia, 1880). Their “black color” has been seen as their distinctive mark of humanity (Ex parte Virginia, 1880; Carter v. Texas, 1900.) They have been named “a citizen of African race” (Neal v. Delaware, 1881; Bush v. Kentucky, 1883) and of African “descent” (Woody v. Brush, 1891). They have been looked on as people apart, truly another race. Equally, the U.S. Supreme Court has defined Mexican-American as “strangers”- “a separate class, distinct from whites” as a group, “those persons of Mexican descent,” and “a person with a Mexican or Latin American name” (Hernandez v. Texas, 1954; Casteneda v. Partida, 1977). The legal edicts offered by the Court have contended that race is the basis of property (owners v. slaves), of power (inferiority v. superiority), and of ethno-social attributes, as when the place of origin of ones forbears or their surnames designate another “race.” Race thereby becomes a way of casting black and Hispanics as outsiders-outside the bounds of rights to the nation’s bounty (Barrera, 1969; Bonacich, 1972, 1973, 1980; Feagin, 1984). – The U.S. Supreme Court, the Constitutional Background of Jury Selection, and Racial RepresentationWith the outbreak of war, thousands of blacks made their way to freedom during the Revolution. Enslaved persons during these years found their freedom through military service, petitions for freedom and by those revolutionist who fully embodied the ideal that “every man is created equal” and manumitted their slaves. At the end of the war over 5,000 enslaved Africans had fought with the Continental Army and joined the new America as free men, vastly increasing the number of free black people in the newly formed states. See Heather Andrea Williams, American Slavery: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2014The presence of free blacks altered the prevailing racial categories. Previously the color of one’s skin was associated with slavery, black indicating enslaved and white indicating free. After the Revolution when tens of thousands of African Americans gained their freedom, either by volunteering or manumission, racial enslavement appeared inconsistent. Free blacks appeared to subvert the logic of racially based enslavement Gillmer, Jason, Suing for Freedom: Interracial Sex, Slave Law, and Racial Identity in the Post-Revolutionary and Antebellum South (January 1, 2004). North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 82, No. 2, January 2004. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1799647Similarly, in State v. Soto, a superior court judge in Gloucester County, New Jersey, granted the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized after being stopped on the New Jersey Turnpike. The court held that the seventeen minority defendants who were African-Americans, the majority of whom were males, established a case of selective enforcement based on race. In Soto, the defense conducted a study to determine if law enforcement officers were engaged in racial profiling. The study revealed that an adult black male was present in 88% of the cases where the gender of all occupants could be determined and that where gender and age could be determined, a black male 30 or younger was present in 63 of the cases. Other examples of racial profiling include an incident involving the Maryland State Police, which settled a lawsuit following the discovery of an internal memo that encouraged state troopers to target African-American males driving east on I-68. The profile of the Maryland State Police suggested that being black plus male and driving on I-68 equaled criminal activity. See Racial Profiling of African-American Males: Stopped, Searched, andStripped of Constitutional ProtectionIn the 1660s the price of tobacco declined and the farmers got problems. Only those who had capital enough to engage in large-scale production could continue to make a profit. Rumors of poor working conditions reached England, and contributed to keep free, white workers back in their homeland. In order to provide enough manpower, the colonial legislature passed a law allowing slavery. King Charles II granted a royal charter in order to establish a company that was to transport African slaves to North America. See Slavery in the British colonies in North AmericaIn any case, another association gradually arose in North America and that was between ‘negro’ and ‘slave’. Early legislation commonly referred to ‘negro and other slaves’ or to ‘negro, mulatto, and Indian slaves’. Over the years ‘negro’ and ‘black’ both became synonymous with enslavement. In 1702 an observer wrote that the wealth of Virginia consisted in ‘slaves or Negroes’. But 1806 Virginia judges ruled that a person who was of a white appearance was to be presumed free but ‘in the case of a person visibly appearing to be of the slave race, it is incumbent upon him to make out his freedom.’ In 1819 South Carolina judges stated flatly: ‘The word “Negroes” has a fixed meaning (slaves). See Africans and Native Americans: The Language of Race and the Evolution of Red … By Jack D. ForbesBritain relied on slavery and slave-produced products for whatever wealth it got from British America and was heavily involved in slavery as the leading trafficker of slaves across the Atlantic from the mid-17th century until the abolition of the slave trade in 1807. British ships carried millions of slaves to the Americas, where they changed the demographic makeup of European-controlled settlements markedly. Slavery was also a highly significant social institution. It led to the growth of a planter class––the most important and long-lasting elite in British American and American history. It also was important in developing pernicious ideas of race that were used by planters to justify their dominion over enslaved people. And, most importantly, it brought Africans to America. They brought with them their African culture, which was transformed by exposure to other cultural practices and became a distinctive part of the British American experience. Finally, slavery was an institution that relied at bottom on coercion and violence. The application of such coercion met with considerable resistance from those to whom violence was done. Slavery in British America Trevor Burnard LAST MODIFIED: 29 MAY 2015Slavery explicitly was a Racial Institution. In every state but Delaware, blacks were presumed at law to be slaves; proving one was legally white constituted a defense to slavery. The badges and incidents of slavery the Thirteenth Amendment opposes will overwhelming manifest in racial forms. The amendment does not prohibit, and even invites, analyses of racial harm. See The Case for United States Reparations to African Americans by Adrienne D. DavisIn Gibbons, the Chief Justice of New Jersey charged the jury, that the colour of this man was sufficient evidence that he was a slave.” In upholding the jury’s verdict, the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals also affirmed that the law presumes every man that is black to be a slave.” The head-notes to the official report of the case confirmed that “In New Jersey, all blacks were presumed to be slaves until they could prove otherwise. According to the Henry Holt Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins the word “blacklist” originated with a list England’s King Charles II made of fifty-eight judges and court officers who sentenced his father, Charles I, to death in 1649. When Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660, thirteen of these regicides were put to death and twenty-five sentenced to life imprisonment, while others escaped. A blacklist (or black list) is a list or register of entities or people who, for one reason or another, are being denied a particular privilege, service, mobility, access or recognition. As a verb, to blacklist can mean to deny someone work in a particular field, or to ostracize a person from a certain social circle.This figurative sense derived from the literal meaning of A badge as a sign deliberately worn to indicate position or status. From certain external features, an individuals social position could be inferred. Thus, in an argument before the Supreme Court in 1843, a lawyer for a slave seeking freedom through a conditional manumission offered the following observation about American slavery: Colour in a slave holding state is a badge of slavery. It is not so where slavery does not exist. Williams v. Ash, 42 U.S. 1, 8 (1843) 2 Being black was evidence of being a slave. According to one nineteenth century history of English law, the phrase refers to those badges of slavery which are imposed upon a conquered people. Owen Flint off, The Rise and Progress of the Laws of England and Wales 139 (1840).Another instance of something becoming retrospectively black begins in antiquity with the Greek workd nekromanteia which means divination by the dead. However, by the thirteenth century it was corrupted to nigromantia, black divination’ (James 1981:23). I would suggest that it is the historical fact of the crusades that encourages this slippage to take place. This gave rise to the contemporary phrases ‘black art’ and ‘black magic’.Another instance of something becoming retrospectively black begins in antiquity with the Greek workd nekromanteia which means divination by the dead. However, by the thirteenth century it was corrupted to nigromantia, black divination’ (James 1981:23). I would suggest that it is the historical fact of the crusades that encourages this slippage to take place. This gave rise to the contemporary phrases ‘black art’ and ‘black magic’.Another instance occurs with the son of Edward III, who lived in the fourteenth century. He was not called the Black Prince until the sixteenth century by Grafton in 1569 (OED: 251) as a way of signifying his malignancy. And by the seventeenth century the phrase Black Prince had become even more evil by becoming another name for the Devil. In tracing the pictorial representation of the devil in west European art, James found that the devil was not regularly coloured black until the Fourteenth century. By the 1880s it had gained a more sinister meaning,that of ‘a captive negro or Polynesian on board a slave or pirate ship….hence Blackbirder, man or vessel engaged in slave traffic. ‘Blackamoor was initially used without ‘depreciatory force (OED), it meant literally black Moor. But by 1663 it had become a synonym for devil. The citation in the OED is ‘He’ is dead long since and gone to the blackmores below’. In the seventeenth century it comes to mean ‘vagabond, loafing, or criminal class of a community, and by the eighteenth century it has increased its forcefulness to mean ‘One of the idle criminal class, a rough; hence, a low worthless character addicted to or ready for crime, an poen scoundrel ( A term of utmost opprobrium)…..pertaining to the dregs of the community; of low, worthless character; brutally vicours or scurrilous’ (OED). See Race, Colour and the Processes of Racialization: New Perspectives from Group … By Farhad DalalThe Negro in the New World By Sir Harry Hamilton Johnston states: “When the Portuguese discovers, urged on by Prince Henry of Portugal, had rounded Cape Bojador, and after reaching Rio d’Ouro in 1435……” In this Footnotes it says “This is the reason why blackamoor in English, Morioan in Dutch, Morian in German, Moro in Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian and Moriaud in French were early names for Negroes. “Negro”, a Spanish word, did not come into common use in England till the nineteenth century. See Why Do Blacks Ignore that Black and Negro Are Synonymous with Slave