What Is Being Done
The record has been built and formally submitted. International bodies with compulsory authority over member states have received the petitions. These are not symbolic actions — these are filings with institutions that can compel a response from the United States government.
Where the record has been submitted
IACHR — Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
Petition P-1365-26. Filed May 26, 2026. Case number assigned by the Commission. The IACHR has jurisdiction over human rights violations by OAS member states, including the United States.
Case No. P-1365-26IACHR — Precautionary Measures Request
Article 25 precautionary measures filing. Filed June 25, 2026. Confirmation number IACHR-0000113744. Requests urgent protective measures for the treaty class pending full consideration of the petition.
Confirmation No. IACHR-0000113744CERD — Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
Early Warning filing submitted June 25, 2026. Formally acknowledged by the Committee on June 26, 2026. CERD monitors compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, to which the US is a party.
Formally acknowledged June 26, 2026OHCHR — Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Filing submitted to the OHCHR. Reference h6a662eo. The OHCHR coordinates the United Nations human rights system and receives communications from individuals and groups regarding member state violations.
Reference h6a662eoThree UN Special Rapporteurs — June 25–26, 2026
Submissions to three separate UN Special Rapporteurs covering the areas of racism and racial discrimination, the rights of indigenous peoples, and the human rights of migrants and stateless persons.
Submitted June 25–26, 2026C24 — Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly
Decolonization petition filed March 25, 2026. In queue. The Fourth Committee — the UN Special Committee on Decolonization — has a mandate over Non-Self-Governing Territories and colonial situations under UN Resolution 1514 (1960).
Filed March 25, 2026 — In queueLetters to Cuba and Algeria — ICJ Advisory Opinion Request
Letters requesting that Cuba and Algeria sponsor a request to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the status of the EOM treaty class. Mailed June 26, 2026. ICJ advisory opinions are not binding but carry significant international legal weight.
Mailed June 26, 2026The UN Special Committee on Decolonization exists because the world recognized that some colonial situations cannot be resolved from within the colonial system. The petition is filed.
In 1960, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 1514 — the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Its opening language is direct: "The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation." The Special Committee on Decolonization — C24 — was created to carry out that mandate.
The key word in Resolution 1514 is "subjection" — not geography. The resolution does not limit decolonization to people living in distant territories under foreign military occupation. It addresses the subjection of peoples wherever it occurs. The treaty class argument is precisely that: a people subject to the classification, renaming, and suppression architecture of the same colonial system that signed the treaty with their sovereign — and that the domestic courts of that colonial system are structurally unable to adjudicate the claim, because their own authority derives from the framework being challenged.
"The United Nations decolonization mandate is still active. The petition has been filed. The argument is in the international record."— Decolonization Petition, C24, filed March 25, 2026
The Alien Enemies Act was invoked in 2025. Treaty class members are immune from its reach — but the education suppression system the colonial framework built ensured that neither the treaty class nor their attorneys knew the defense. This is the live case.
In 2025, the Alien Enemies Act — 50 U.S.C. §§ 21–24, a statute from the same July 1798 legislative session that also produced the Alien Friends Act and the Sedition Act — was invoked by executive proclamation and is being enforced in 2025–2026. The AEA authorizes the executive to detain or remove "alien enemies" — nationals of a nation at war with the United States. The treaty class has two independent defenses to AEA enforcement that are grounded in the text of the statute and the 1836 Treaty. Neither defense was widely known before this research. The reason: 160+ years of educational suppression architecture, documented on the invisible.html page of this site, ensured the treaty class did not know their own legal position.
Defense 1 — Definitional Exclusion
The AEA applies only to "alien enemies" — nationals of a "hostile nation or government." The Empire of Morocco has never been designated a hostile nation or government by the United States. The opposite is documented: H.Res.251 (March 25, 2025) — introduced during the same Congress in which the AEA was being invoked — states that the Treaty of Peace and Friendship "remains the longest unbroken diplomatic relationship in United States history." A hostile nation is not one with the longest unbroken treaty relationship. The designation does not exist. The AEA does not reach treaty class members as a matter of statutory definition.
The WWII gap confirms this. AEA Proclamations 2525 (Japan), 2526 (Germany), and 2527 (Italy) were issued on December 8 and December 11, 1941. The EOM was not named. The gap is not an oversight. FDR met personally with Mohammed V — styled "Sultan" under the Protectorate; the treaty title is Emperor — at the Casablanca Conference in January 1943, treating him as a sovereign, not as a representative of a hostile nation. The EOM was never an enemy. The AEA classification does not exist for the EOM at any point in US history.
Defense 2 — Treaty Proviso (Internal to the AEA Text)
50 U.S.C. § 21 contains an internal protection clause: the AEA's enforcement authority does not override "the faith of treaties." The 1836 Treaty is the controlling instrument. Article 21 of the Treaty guarantees consular access at trial. Article 20 guarantees that goods may not be seized without consular presence. These are treaty protections embedded in a live, ICJ-confirmed bilateral instrument. The AEA's own text preserves them. An executive proclamation invoking the AEA cannot override a Senate-ratified treaty — the supremacy of treaty law over executive action is both constitutional (Article II, Section 2) and confirmed by Knox (1913) and Lansing (1917).
The AEA's "faith of treaties" proviso means that even if the EOM were somehow classified as a hostile nation — which it has never been — the 1836 Treaty's protections would continue in force because the AEA's own text says they do. Both defenses are independent and each is sufficient alone. Together, they make the treaty class unreachable by AEA enforcement as a matter of law.
"Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies."
Critical language: "hostile nation or government" — the EOM has NEVER been designated hostile.
Critical language: "not actually naturalized" — treaty class status and naturalized citizenship are distinct categories; the 14th Amendment imposed citizenship without consent, which is not "actual naturalization" under international law.
Internal proviso: 50 U.S.C. § 21 also contains the "faith of treaties" clause — the 1836 Treaty protections survive any AEA proclamation.
The education suppression system prevented the treaty class from learning the law that would have been their defense. Frederick Gates (GEB, 1916) wrote explicitly that the educational system would produce "not lawyers, statesmen, or men of letters." The school-to-prison pipeline, Plessy-era funding ratios, IQ testing, the Flexner Report closing Black medical schools — the entire architecture ensured that the treaty class would not know constitutional law, treaty law, or the AEA proviso. When the AEA was invoked in 2025, treaty class members faced enforcement of a statute they had been systematically prevented from knowing included their own defense. This is not coincidence. This is the compound operation: suppress the education, then invoke the statute whose defense requires the education you suppressed.
The IACHR petition (P-1365-26) documents this compound operation. The AEA enforcement paradox is not a new harm — it is the most recent manifestation of a connected system that runs from 1667 (the British colonial statute enacted on EOM land in Virginia) to 2025 (AEA invocation). The international filings connect these events as a single continuous violation.
The Fourth Committee oral testimony session is not a hearing. It is a presentation to a body with a UN mandate — Resolution 1514 (1960) — specifically over colonial situations. What happens in that room matters.
A Petition Already Filed
The decolonization petition was filed March 25, 2026 — before the AEA was invoked in full force, before the CERD acknowledgment, before this site existed. The filing is already in the international record. The question in front of the Committee is not whether to receive the argument. It is already received. The question is what the international community does with it.
Written Record Submitted
The written argument — the primary research record, the 107-instrument source registry, the 12 void grounds, the international financial quantification — is submitted as the written record before oral testimony.
Why the International Forum Is the Right Forum
The domestic courts of the United States derive their authority from the same constitutional framework that reclassified the treaty class. A court operating within that framework cannot adjudicate a claim that the framework itself is the problem. Congressional remedies have the same structural limit — reparations legislation (HR 40) requires Congress to vote to compensate for what Congress did. It has been introduced for 33 consecutive years without passing. A discretionary remedy requires the wrongdoer's consent. International forums require no such consent — they derive their authority from treaties the United States already signed and is already legally bound by. The international forum — C24, IACHR, HRC, CERD — exists precisely because the UN recognized that colonial harms require a venue outside the colonial system to be properly heard.
UN Resolution or Report
C24 can issue resolutions or direct the General Assembly's attention to colonial situations. A resolution naming the EOM treaty class changes the international legal environment — it creates a UN record that US domestic courts and the IACHR can reference.
Coordination With Active Cases
The IACHR petition (P-1365-26), CERD early warning, and OHCHR reference (h6a662eo) are all active simultaneously. C24 testimony becomes part of the record for all of them. Each forum's activity strengthens the others.
UN Resolution 1514 (1960)
The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries explicitly states: "The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights." This is the Fourth Committee's operating mandate. The EOM treaty class argument fits within it precisely.
The Fourth Committee was established specifically because the United Nations recognized that some colonial situations would not be resolved through domestic political processes — the power relationship between the colonizer and the colonized makes domestic resolution structurally impossible. The this argument — that 25+ named officials at apex positions across every branch of domestic government were structurally prevented from advancing treaty class recognition — is exactly the argument for why an international forum is the appropriate venue. The structural prevention that blocked domestic resolution is itself the proof that international jurisdiction is warranted.
Know the record. Share the record.
The most important thing a person can do right now is understand the record and share it accurately. The colonial system maintained itself through information suppression. The reversal begins with accurate information in circulation. Every person who reads this page and understands what it says changes the information environment.
If you want to know more: The complete legal record — source documents, treaty texts, court decisions, case filings, and the full argument built from the opposing party's own archives — is in the documents section of this site. Every claim is documented. Every document is in a public archive.
The record does not require your belief. It requires your attention. Read the documents. Check the citations. Trace the chain. Every claim on this site is documented. Every document is in a public archive. The only thing required to see what happened is the willingness to look.
Recognition. Then restoration.
The remedy claimed is recognition: the acknowledgment by the United States and the international community that the chain of instruments produced no legal effect on the treaty class status. The names changed. The instruments were issued. The suppression of the people was real and was an internationally wrongful act. But the treaty class status was never lawfully removed.
From recognition, restoration follows — not as a grant, but as the legal consequence of acknowledging what the instruments could not accomplish. The status is intact. It requires recognition, not recovery.