The United States is inside the Empire of Morocco.
America began by asking an older, stronger sovereign — the Empire of Morocco, under its Sultan — to be its friend. It signed a treaty, made it perpetual, was ordered by the world's highest court to obey that Empire's law, and to this day calls the treaty unbroken and in force. A power bound by another sovereign's law, answering in that sovereign's forum, admitting the bond has never broken, is a power operating inside that sovereign's domain.
The legal record proves it. No court has yet ruled on the whole conclusion — that is exactly what the petitions now pending ask a court to declare.Proven by the record; not yet adjudicated. Yet.
In 1786 the United States came as the supplicant — and was granted no power over the Sultan's subjects.
The 1786 Treaty of Peace and Friendship (8 Stat. 100) was the young, weaker republic securing terms from an established empire. It granted the United States no jurisdiction over the Sultan's subjects: Article 21 sends every dispute between an American and a subject of the Emperor to "the law of the Country" — the Empire of Morocco's own law. In 1836 the renewing treaty (8 Stat. 484) made the bond perpetual — it continues until one side gives twelve months' notice to quit. No such notice was ever given.
In 1912, by the Treaty of Fez, the Sultan made France the protector over the Empire of Morocco. So when France took the United States to the International Court of Justice in 1952, it sued as the Empire's protector — the posture itself an admission that the United States was acting where the Empire's jurisdiction reached.
The United States asked the World Court to exempt its citizens from the Empire's law — and lost.
Four years later, Public Law 84-856 (1956) claimed to relinquish United States jurisdiction "over subjects of Morocco." But the treaty of 1786/1836 never granted any such jurisdiction — it was a capitulation imposed on the Empire's sovereignty, unlawful from the start. You cannot lawfully surrender what was never lawfully held, and the authority the United States still exercises over the found-here class was never treaty-granted and continues today.
The Empire's own name for its domain means "the Farthest West."
The claim advanced here, and led from the record, is that the Farthest West is the Americas, and the found-here people the Empire's subjects. In the 1952 case the United States admitted holding jurisdiction over the Sultan's subjects — not in the French Zone, not the Spanish Zone, not the Tangier zone. By elimination the ground that jurisdiction ran on is the land now called North America. The Court also held the Moorish bond "essentially personal in character" — carried by the subject, wherever they stand.
Four documented pillars carry the frame — not etymology, not genetics: the name itself ("the Farthest West," a superlative of distance); the colonizers' own pre-1786 reference works logging the Empire as a sovereign peer; the Salé rovers' Atlantic reach to the Newfoundland banks; and the found-here Moors petitioning American courts as the Emperor's subjects, named beside "a citizen of the United States" in the 1788 Massachusetts law.
America itself calls the treaty unbroken — across all three branches.
A 1959 State Department note tried to wave the treaty away — twenty-one months before the U.N. opened decolonization (Resolution 1514, 1960). But the government's own later word — Congress in 2025, the State Department in 2026, the World Court back in 1952 — all say the treaty is alive. The note produced no effect. The claim reached the decolonization era intact; it is not time-barred.
The record proves it. A court has not adjudicated the whole conclusion — yet.
The individual facts above are proven and, on the narrow points, adjudicated: the treaty in force, no fiscal immunity, France's standing, the 1956 statute. The sweeping conclusion — that the United States is inside the Empire of Morocco and the found-here class are its nationals — is proven from that record and pleaded, not a prior court ruling. It is precisely what the petitions now before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (P-1365-26) and the United Nations decolonization committee ask a court to declare.