Nation TIME Judicial Research Inc.

06/16/2026

I went to a Muslims Brothers meeting Sunday at Sister Claire Muhammad's. They were trying to address the youth problem; I ask if any Imam there was connected to the prison population, I did not have time to make my point. Most of the youth they are trying to get with have parents in jail sometimes mother and father, let the parents know while they're incarcerated, they still are important enough to have someone they can send to check on their children
which would make it easier for youth to accept them as mentors
Razakhan

06/14/2026

I've been asked why I am always along; it may look like that but I'm not. I was raised in a gangster town, grew up and learned from all the so-called bad guys; I will call no names. I'm on a mission, I'm at war with the evil ones in this government democrats, republicans, and the negropeans which makes me a target, the way the government come after you they take out your friends to make sure you have no one to depend on. I had to stop for a while and go back to work, we will be starting to run Nation Time Judicia Research again, we will have all the incarcerated persons that need help contact us, especially those that the institutions have labeled with mental problems, because it's the institutions that cause the problems. contact Nation Time Judicial Research, P. O. Box 188, Sharon Hill, Pa. 19079 .we don't just do Philadelphia we do nationwide research so if anyone has family or friends in New York especially Elmira, get with us See less

06/12/2026

04/21/2026

OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMUNITY
Psychological profiling
(1). Greetings family I am back to communicating with our incarcerated community brothers and sisters, not just in Pennsylvania but across the nation you have no idea the dangers that our loved ones are in, in these crazy facilities. I'm speaking from experience because of how I was treated as a youngster at 10 years old. I got into an altercation with an individual that was 17 years old and I hurt him extremely badly and because of how I communicated that to my captors when they asked me what were you thinking, I told them I was going to take this guy with me . Because of that response ,they labeled me, no they told my family I suffered from Emotional Fragility and they explained to them what it meant they gave their diagnosis of what they felt I was because of what I said, they said I was irrationally homicidal with suicidal tendencies and being Emotional Fragility, meaning that if my feelings were hurt I would kill everybody and commit su***de, which scared myself and my family, then they told them they had medication that would cure that. That was until my grandfather stepped in because we were all afraid, to death, of that diagnosis. He came in and told us that Emotional Fragility means the tendency to be easily overwhelmed by difficult emotions. And that occurs with a lot of people, but they wanted to treat that with medication they did for a minute, until my grandfather stopped it and took me with him. My aunt made me promise her that I would only fight if I felt my life was being threatened
(2). At age 11 or 12 I graduated from elementary school and went to junior high school Audenried Junior high 33rd and Tasker St. On my first day as we went into the auditorium for orientation the teacher called me up on stage to show that whole auditorium of children how not to look or dress when you come to school, I became stoic, it hurt so bad that I felt absolutely nothing. The only thing I could think was I should take this teacher and throw her ass into the Auditorium but my aunts cautionary instructions and the promise I made to her came to my mind, when I told my grandfather about that he said they were trying to test me, they knew I had just come from being incarcerated and they wanted to see if they could make me hurt one of them like I hurt that dude. I was transferred.
(3). I was ashamed for a long time to tell my story, that’s why I encourage folks that feel as though they have a problem talk about it. My problem with me, if you could call it that, I come up with certain serious individuals that live by codes that we abided by religiously and you could tell by their actions, their words and deeds whether they violate the code or not, and our code already came with certain penalties. If you committed a capital offense that came with a particular punishment, we lived in our lane and we understood that. I became a Muslim because I loved the concept of and this is what I felt, you want for your brother what you want for yourself. If you are Muslim and believes other than that. then you're not a Muslim. We have so called Muslims individuals that look down on Brothers that truly feel and try to follow the religious doctrine, but your warning, it comes with punishment too. That's why psychological profiling comes into play because those that practice those deviant actions will put them on you, so you can spend your time needlessly trying to explain to them you are not like them no matter how it may seem to them because their mind is preset, the devil has already set their mind.
• (4). According to societies classification I came up with some of the coldest killers that has ever existed not just in Philadelphia ,across the nation and because I am soft hearted, kind and generous, a lot of individuals thought that I was paying to be in that company until they pulled up on me on a few occasions, but Allah is Akbar and they disappeared .My thoughts were I used to get upset with myself because of how I was, I would cry in a heartbeat. I wanted to be mean, tough, and evil, and I just couldn't be that, but when I started learning Islam and following Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) Prophet Muhammad was known to cry during moments of deep emotional connection, such as prayer and reflection.
• He often wept when reciting or listening to the Quran, particularly verses about mercy and judgment.
• His tears were also shed in response to the suffering of others, showing his compassion.
• He cried during significant events, such as the loss of loved ones, including his wife Khadijah and uncle Abu Talib.
• His tears were a sign of humility and devotion, illustrating his deep faith and empathy.
Then I understood that a soft heart was a gift from the Creator that demonstrated humility because the Prophet cried. Then I started feeling a whole lot better about myself. I was in a spirited argument with some of Mumia’s legal people and supporters and I was lambasting them for their unprofessional representation of him not only that, but they also use Mumia's name to destroy powerful black individuals and institutions and was not even trying to get him out, he has government lawyers working his case. When they started explaining exactly what he was going through the itching, the tormenting, and all the medical misery he was going through, I broke down and shared a few tears and couldn't speak any more. Then I inadvertently said I should choke these motherf**kers out, the next thing I hear, he is talking all that tough gangster s**t, and he in there crying like a bitch. Then we had Doctor Mutulu Shakur's fundraiser in DC when he got on to speak, he said I shed tears for Mumia too, that was a handshake for me, from one of our great generals, Rest In Power, my Brother because I needed that. Much Love, Much Respect
Razakhan 4-20-26

04/06/2026

To all those who have not read Judge Leon Tucker's ruling in Mumia Abu Jamal's case here it is. For those individuals that wonder why I say for some reason Mumia is not trying to come home you tell me( Tucker’s ruling Thursday may prolong her agony but follows a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court finding that former Pennsylvania Chief Justice Ronald Castille had been wrong to hear a death-penalty appeal that had come through his office when he was Philadelphia’s district attorney from 1986-1991. Castille had done the same in Abu-Jamal’s case.
“They shouldn’t have been able to raise the issue about me, because they never asked me to recuse myself,’ Castille, now retired, told The Associated Press on Friday. “The court ... knew I’d signed off on the appeal, but I had nothing to do with the trial.”
Tucker, in a 37-page opinion, said the appearance of bias was clear and that Abu-Jamal’s appeal should be reargued by the current state Supreme Court based on the briefs his lawyers filed at the time.
“The slightest appearance of bias or lack of impartiality undermines the entire judiciary,” Tucker wrote.
Tucker’s ruling Thursday may prolong her agony, but follows a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court finding that former Pennsylvania Chief Justice Ronald Castille had been wrong to hear a death-penalty appeal that had come through his office when he was Philadelphia’s district attorney from 1986-1991. Castille had done the same in Abu-Jamal’s case.
“They shouldn’t have been able to raise the issue about me, because they never asked me to recuse myself,’ Castille, now retired, told The Associated Press on Friday. “The court ... knew I’d signed off on the appeal, but I had nothing to do with the trial.”
Tucker, in a 37-page opinion, said the appearance of bias was clear and that Abu-Jamal’s appeal should be reargued by the current state Supreme Court based on the briefs his lawyers filed at the time.
“The slightest appearance of bias or lack of impartiality undermines the entire judiciary,” Tucker wrote.
District Attorney Larry Krasner, a civil rights lawyer intent on criminal justice reform who took office this year, has not decided whether to challenge the ruling.
April 17, 2019 Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner has abandoned his efforts to derail Mumia Abu-Jamal from re-arguing his 1981 conviction for killing a city police officer.
In a turnaround, the city's top prosecutor withdrew his challenge of a December ruling from Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Leon Tucker that granted Abu-Jamal a rehearing of his conviction for the murder of Daniel Faulkner while on duty.
The decision does not grant Abu-Jamal a new trial. Instead, he can proceed with a rehearing of his appeals before the state Supreme Co

03/28/2026

Everybody knew Imam Ali-Amin was framed except for his lawyers. When the prosecutors started asking why would the American Government want to frame him I thought the Imam's lawyers would tear them apart, because that was the argument they should have wanted.

ATLANTA (AP) — Georgia prosecutors defending the 2002 murder conviction of a onetime Black Panther leader known as H. Rap Brown say new DNA evidence still points strongly to his guilt in the shooti…

02/07/2026

DMX, I heard a statement somebody saying why do they always have to glorify drug addicts. When you think about DMX and how he came up in the atrocities that he lived through it’s a wonder he didn't grow up to be a mass murderer. I come up with some of the hardest individuals in Philadelphia but they were the nicest people you could imagine, would they hurt somebody or kill them, yes they would. But only if you were dastardly enough to deserve it, people get what they deserve. Looking at DMX most of the people I grew up with, 90% of them were drug addicts, and so was I, just like 90% of America are drug addicts depending on who's labeling them. I came through some of the most wicked penal institutions in the world and I can recognize individuals that's drugged up, and they don't even know they are drugged up. Just like most people don't consider themself drug addicts if doctors give it to them. If you’re on Oxycodone you're not a drug addict if it comes from a doctor, but if he stopped giving it to you and you start taking He**in you are a drug addict and it’s the same thing. If you use Co***ne you’re a drug addict, but if a doctor gives you Methylphenidate or Ritalin the same thing they give our children, then you're not a drug addict. it depends on the mindset of individuals but what they do now, the reason I brought this up is because I have been through some of the most dangerous penal institutions in America and how I survive constantly fighting these demons is beyond me, Allah is Akbar. What made me think about this, I remember seeing Mike Tyson when he was married to Robin Givens, sitting on the couch. In the interview she said some of the most disturbing things, and I’m thinking Mike is going to turn her upside down. But you could see, it never even registered on him what she said , he heard her but didn’t , not a flicker of anger or anxiety. and I’m thinking I've been there before. I started thinking about Fluoxetine or Sertraline Bipolar Medication when people are on that they act like nothing really registered things don't bother them right away, but when that s**t wears off, like it did with him, two or three hours later ,they said he ran her and her mother out of the house. Please, if you have a loved one in one of these institutions stay on top of them, if for some reason you can’t give their name and number to some of the Brothers that work with the incarcerated. Much Love Much Respect Razakhan
2-7-26

02/05/2026

With Sharif Street – I just got recognized as one of their top fans! 🎉

01/24/2026

01/10/2026

D.H.Q.
Data Management, Inc
P.O.Box 188
Sharon Hill, Pa. 19079
February 15, 2005
Hon. Arlen Specter
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20051
: One point that to days hypocritical, selfish, self-serving politicians should realize is, The Founding Fathers were a lot smarter than them. That's why within the U.S. constitution they established the ultimate rule of law. At the President's inauguration he swore to Defend and Uphold the Constitution. Supreme Court Justices also are sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution, and to interpret and compare legislation according to the dictates of the Constitution. It also promulgates that all American Citizens are protected by the Constitution, and no one is above the law, not even the members of the Supreme Court. That's why the U.S. Constitution is labeled a Rigid Constitution, which cannot be changed without the consent of three-fourths of the States Legislatures or through a Constitutional Convention Which brings one question to mind; maybe the Constitutional Scholars can answer. What gives the U.S. Supreme Court, the authority to capriciously change and alter the U.S. Constitution, in violation of Article Five of the Constitution?
The Founding Fathers foresaw the possibility that the Supreme Court would one day be politicized, and stacked with judicial cowards, with one purpose, to do their political bosses bidding. Today, the Constitution means whatever today's Supreme Court want it to mean, as long as it's ideologically slanted to the views of their political bosses. Justice Scalia showed the world Dick Cheney is his political boss, when he threw his judicial integrity in the toilet to go duck hunting with him, knowing Chaney's case was soon to be before him.
After reading G, Gordon Liddy's book (When I was a kid this country was free), it put things into perspective and shows how history repeats itself. Liddy says... At Roosevelts behest, The Democratic Congress
1
passed law after law that was un-constitutional, and the Supreme Court ruled it as such. Roosevelt then tried to pack that Supreme Court with additional justices who would vote as he wished. That end run failed but the vote in Congress was so close, that the High Court was intimidated. Thus, they softened their firm stance against Roosevelt and devised a way around the Constitution that is still in use today. Why no outrage from the Legislature? Because a weak Supreme Court, will gladly do their bidding. Where are the true defenders of the Constitution? in numerous Supreme Court cases, decisions like Whitt v. U.S- 515 US 389 (1995 ) uncharged criminal conduct can be used in determining sentences, U.S. v. Watts 519 US 148 (1997) Conduct of which a defendant has been acquitted can be still used against him at sentencing, Love v. Menifee 333 f:3rd 70 (2003) cert. denied, and Crawford v. Washington 541 usJ , (2004) defendants sentenced on Relevant Conduct, Obstruction of Justice, Preponderance of the Evidence, or just plain hearsay from the prosecutor. The Supreme Court totally altered, amended, or just plain nullified the 5th, 6th and the 7th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Whereas, the Supreme Court does not have the constitutional authority to change or amend the Constitution, Article Five of the Constitution states:
The Congress whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of several States, shall call a Convention proposing Amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by Congress.
One concept is imperative in our Constitution (NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW). The Founding Fathers knew political zealots and out and out scoundrels would try to manipulate and change the Constitution for their own political gain. That's why the checks and balances, and the separation of powers are mandated by the Constitution. Under federal law Legislative Powers is vested in Congress, consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. A Legislative body may delegate a portion of its law-making authority to agencies within the executive branch for purposes of rulemaking and regulations. But, a legislative body may not delegate its authority to
2
the judicial branch, and the judicial branch may not encroach on legislative duties. Black's Law Dictionary States 🙁 courts have held may to be synonymous with shall or must, in an effort to effectuate legislative intent). Even if the Judicial Branch tried to use the Dormant Legislative Intent Rule: The intent the legislature would have if a given ambiguity, inconsistency, or omission had been called to the legislator's minds. It, still would not justify the Supreme Court's decisions, nor give them the authority to amend and or nullify the 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments to the Constitution. Because neither of these Amendments are ambiguous, they say just what they mean, and they mean just what they say. Even if their was a problem with these Amendments, that makes the Supreme Court disregard them in their decisions, they are still without authority to do so. The Legislative Equivalency Doctrine comes into play, That rule being (a law should be amended or repealed only by the same procedures that were used to enact it)
Because this is the same Reagan-Bush administration from the 80's and the rhetoric is the same, War, Pre-emptive Strikes Nuclear Weapons, Axis of Evil, and the U.S. Constitution, it brought back to mind a book I read in 1989, Out of Control by Leslie Cockburn. In chapter seven she writes... There were plenty of orders floating around the Reagan National Security Council from the time Ollie North joined it as a junior staffer in 1981, that might be considered unwise or foolhardy. One of the early obsessions of the administration was fighting a nuclear war. Thomas Reed, the staffer for whom North went to bat at his trial ( for massacring innocent civilians) once declared that the policy was that the U.S should " prevail with pride" in a nuclear conflict. To this end, ambitious plans were laid for civil defense in a nuclear emergency. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) labored over schemes to evacuate the urban population of the United States. Lieutenant Colonel North, as the NSC liaison with FEMA, worked diligently on one portion of the plan, the suspension of the Constitution and imposition of martial law. The suspension of the Constitution might also come about in conditions short of nuclear war, North reasoned, it could be imposed during conditions of violent opposition to a foreign military operation. If American forces attack North Korea and Iran there would most certainly be violent opposition to foreign military operations. So, good-bye Constitution, with the blessing of a politically biased Supreme Court, who do not even have the authority to make such a call.
Listening to the rhetoric coming from the White House, the
3
only thing missing is Ollie North declaring his Project Democracy from his basement office in the White House. What's so enlightening and unsettling about this (old-new) group of White House war mongers that hid themselves from harm's way when they had a chance to fight a war. The only voice of reason that knows firsthand what war is about Colin Powell is gone. Bush has a history of removing those who disagree with him. Paul O’Neil his first treasury secretary was fired after expressing doubts about the need for additional tax cuts proposed by the Presidents Economic Adviser. Lawrence Lindsey got fired after making estimates on the cost of the Iraq war that Bush thought was too high, which turned out to be accurate. Voicing public concern about cost and troop levels hasten retirement for Marine Gen Anthony Zinni and Gen. Eric Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff. These same tactics are being employed by the party faithfull, as they goose step behind their leader. House Republicans ousted Ethics Chairrnan for being too ethical. Rep. Joel Hefley R. Colo. was replaced by Rep. Doc Hasting. Hefley’s ouster was payback for Hefley's valuing higher ethical standards over partisan loyalty, because Hefley last year twice rebuked Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, because of criminal activity DeLay was involved in.
Watch yourself America. The next pre-emptive strike will be the Constitution, because it’s already under siege.
Respectfully Submitted
Razakhan Shahheed Wali
p.o.box
p.o.box