Petition for Rehearing — In Re Taquan Rashe Gullett-El, Petitioner

Supreme Court briefMar 28, 2022

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Bismillah-ir-Rahman-ir-Rahim (In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful)

No. 21-7141

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

In re: Gullett-El, Taquan Rashe,

In Propria Persona, Affiant-Petitioner

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (Nos. 20-55808, 21-56275, 21-71442, 22-55062) and

DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL CALIFORNIA (Nos.2:14-cr-00725-CAS, 2:19-cv-10247-CAS, 2:21-cv-05720-JAK-JDE, 2:21-cv-09264-JAK-JDE)

PETITION FOR REHEARING

Taquan Gullett, also called Maalik Rahshe El

Moorish Science Temple of America / Court of Equity and Truth

10105905 (Tax Immunity Number for the Asiatic Nation of North America)

In Care of: 422 East 27th Street; Jacksonville, Florida near [32206]

Molly's Garden Countee, Timucuan, Al Andalusia, Northwest Amexem [Al-Aqsa Al-Maghrib] (Morocco)

Unlawfully Detained at: [Vinewood Residential Re-Entry Center; 5520 Harold Way; Los Angeles, California 90028]

N/A

Phone Number

In Propria Persona Proceeding in Sui Juris capacity

Bismillah-ir-Rahman-ir-Rahim (In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

In re: Gullett-El, Taquan Rashe,

In Propria Persona, Affiant-Petitioner

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

The Affiant-Petitioner asks leave to file the attached Petition for Rehearing without prepayment of costs and to

proceed in forma pauperis. The courts below appointed counsel for Affiant-Petitioner pursuant to the provisions

of the Criminal Justice Act (18 U.S.C. § 3006A). As such, no affidavit or declaration is required.

S. Ct. R.

39.1.

I, Gullett-El, Taquan Rashe, declare and affirm under penalty of perjury under the Universal Law of Allah, then

under the laws of the United States, that the foregoing is true, correct, and complete. 28 U.S.C. § 1746. Fed. R.

Evid. 902(10).

[Gregorian Calendar Year (G.C.Y.) 2022 — March,

c.Q3

flfar

ctr

cZAAPA1 u

re,ses\u6 OLit4 L4? r‘ C q-e—r\CA Of•

C-St 6:1Mkeis*Ru tearfb,Mery-,

4 k-g-

C atkx,4) \ICC \ -Sot

Maalik Taquan Rahshe Gullett El d/b/a Moorish Science Temple of America / Court of Equity and Truth

10105905 (Tax Immunity Number for the Asiatic Nation of North America)

General Executor-Caveator for AAMARU Religious Consul Association Testamentary Trust

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

J-Cl

l;LA UAL - PETITIONER

(Your Name)

VS.

—R SPONDEN-T-(-S4

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

\r‘o$ 44.1AS

The petitioner asks leave to file the attached petition for a writ of ce.:4

without prepayment of costs and to proceed in forma pauperis.

Please check the appropriate boxes:

0 Petitioner has previously been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in

the following court(s):

0 Petitioner has not previously been granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis in any other court.

0 Petitioner's affidavit or declaration in support of this motion is attached hereto.

' R(Petitioner's affidavit or declaration is not attached because the court below

appointed counsel in the current proceeding, and:

The appointment was made under the following provision of law-

M`, m,„\ 3 v sk;ce AA (kg U

3.601,A)

, or

0 a copy of the order of appointment is appended.

(14&4t.t.:i wvIsts- cutr\t/ ;004 ,),A,,oestivA;

u fvzisks- p rbk4s1 ;

mo.A.Tior,....(4\14A6

cA1 bt-r ciOs

vc,u3tR

(Signature)

AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPER'S

I, ‘110\44,\ 3 \ QV on 43\0 , am the petitioner in the above-entitled case. In support of

my motion to proceed VI, forma pauperis, I state that because of my poverty I am unable to pay

the costs of this case or to give security therefor; and I believe I am entitled to redress.

1. For both you and your spouse estimate the average amount of money received from each of

the following sources during the past 12 months. Adjust any amount that was received

weekly, biweekly, quarterly, semiannually, or annually to show the monthly rate. Use gross

amounts, that is, amounts before any deductions for taxes or otherwise.

Income source

Average monthly amount during

the past 12 months

Amount expected

next month

You

Spouse

You

Employment

$ Mfik

$ N A

$ 1\)

Self-employment

Income from real property

(such as rental income)

$ N/A

$ WA

$ NSA

Interest and dividends

$ N

Gifts

Alimony

(VA

N/A

Spouse

$ NA

$ NAN

Child Support

$ N

$ Nit\

Retirement (such as social

security, pensions,

annuities, insurance)

$ NIA

N14

NO\

N11

Public-assistance

(such as welfare)

$ NA

W-A

Other (specify):Lcv,\*-10

$ N/A

Disability (such as social

security, insurance payments)

Unemployment payments

Total monthly income:

vsb

$ I\VA

2. List your employment history for the past two years, most recent first. (Gross monthly pay

is before taxes or other deductions.)

Employer

Address

Gross monthly pay

Dates of

Employment

1-ik

N /A

3. List your spouse's employment history for the past two years, most recent employer first.

(Gross monthly pay is before taxes or other deductions.)

Employer

Address

/4\

Nik

NI J-N

Dates of

Employment

Gross monthly pay

N/A

$ I\VA

N/A

NSA

4. How much cash do you and your spouse have? $

Below, state any money you or your spouse have in bank accounts or in any other financial

institution.

Type of account (e.g., checking or savings)

f\i/N

Amount you have Amount your spouse has

$ IPP\

$ 1•1/-4%

$ wtk

1\i/k

$ N)t\

$ N/

List the assets, and their values, which you own or your spouse owns. Do not list clothing

and ordinary household furnishings.

0 Home

Value

0 Other real estate

Value

0 Motor Vehicle #1

Year, make & model

Value

CI Other assets

Description

Value

1\1

0 Motor. Vehicle #2

Year, make & model

Value Ni

6. State every person, business, or organization owing you or your spouse money, and the

amount owed.

Person owing you or

your spouse money

itk

Amount owed to you

/Pk

Amount owed to your spouse

$ •(`)

NM\

State the persons who rely on you or your spouse for support. For minor children, list initials

instead of names (e.g. "J.S." instead of "John Smith").

Name

11=k

Relationship

Age

N 11

1\1/4\

NA\

Estimate the average monthly expenses of you and your family. Show separately the amounts

paid by your spouse. Adjust any payments that are made weekly, biweekly, quarterly, or

annually to show the monthly rate.

You

Your spouse

Rent or home-mortgage payment

(include lot rented for mobile home)

$ t\)

Are real estate taxes included? TJ--Yes—ERclo 14

Is property insurance included? 0 Yea -$14o j A

Utilities (electricity, heating fuel,

water, sewer, and telephone)

$ cJA

Home maintenance (repairs and upkeep)

Food

$ N)k

$ 1\14

)1\

$ NIA

Clothing

Laundry and dry-cleaning

Medical and dental expenses

Transportation (not including motor vehicle payments)

You

Your spouse

$ ivJ 1P

$ 1\1

Recreation, entertainment, newspapers, magazines, etc. $

Insurance (not deducted from wages or included in mortgage payments)

Homeowner's or renter's

N lb

$ N /-N

Life

$ N /1

Health

N A

Motor Vehicle

N A

N IA

$ NI /I\

$ N /-1\

Other:

N'4'

Taxes (not deducted from wages or included in mortgage payments)

/I\

(specify):

Installment payments

NJ A

Motor Vehicle

$ N it\

Credit card(s)

$ N/b

$ N /4\

Department store(s)

$ N A

N ii\

$ N /1\

$ WI\

N /1\

$ N A

Other:

Alimony, maintenance, and support paid to others

Regular expenses for operation of business, profession,

or farm (attach detailed statement)

Other (specify): Uyq.s

157)

Total monthly expenses:

)s-c.

444k

9. Do you expect any major changes to your monthly income or expenses or in your assets or

liabilities during the next 12 months?

Yes YkNo

If yes, describe on an attached sheet.

10. Have you paid — or will you be paying — an attorney any money for services in connection

with this case, including the completion of this form? 11] Yes NNo

If yes, how much?

If yes, state the attorney's name, address, and telephone number:

Have you paid—or will you be paying—anyone other than an attorney (such as a paralegal or

a typist) any money for services in connection with this case, including the completion of this

form?

El Yes

If yes, how much?

N 1T\

If yes, state the person's name, address, and telephone number:

N/\

Provide any other information that will help explain why you cannot pay the costs of this case.

tve_ o AANa.

‘,,)\NS 6,N cxce_

eA c'Zibi\ks ) lAvci\o" cZ,Zie3 o,rd

5 R i...\..Ato„

SN.1\p"."\A ecNiA t(

;0(b\I

N'sac'eAS

t Lc\r c r‘)OLl.) 4\g- Co SAS

.kV\ S tikSA-

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

aS S \\0,-\oe.t-N. 1)--‘`-‘3

Executed on:

Mo.r

, 20 a•-aV i14•ftr

4-6\ \:1-AV.t.4 p

eo. 7

K4.0\4,4_

( 4 out 6

k'‘tsc,,tgAsli- stSkr\u-., 004 vi-X\-- Q,SteNt6C",,

Nva)\lco--'sot

(Signature)

Bismillah-ir-Rahman-it-Rahim (In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

In re: Gullett-E1, Taquan Rashe,

In Propria Persona, Affiant-Petitioner

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE (S. Ct. R. 17.3)

The Affiant-Petitioner asks leave to file the Petition for Rehearing annexed and appended to this Motion.

I, Gullett-El, Taquan Rashe, declare and affirm under penalty of perjury under the Universal Law of Allah, then

under the laws of the United States, that the foregoing is true, correct, and complete. 28 U.S.C. § 1746. Fed. R.

Evid. 902(10).

&5 SL40,„ \ \I-No-k3

[Gregorian Calendar Year (G.C.Y.) 2022 — March,n]

R_coN4) vAntov\.

W-4‘\bIN

1/4,,• 3uT ce-tEN-e

A t3A-4, ris iks

(,c\c,a,

ucsN.A1,7

\)Q.(_ \--30t

Maalik Taquan Rahshe Gullett El d/b/a Moorish Science Temple of America / Court of Equity and Truth

10105905 (Tax Immunity Number for the Asiatic Nation of North America)

General Executor-Caveator for AAMARU Religious Consul Association Testamentary Trust

iii

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL / NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

APPLICABLE TO ALL SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS

JUDICIAL NOTICE (Fed. R. Evid. 201)

On the record and for the record, present is Taquan Gullett, also called Maalik Rahshe El d/b/a Moorish Science Temple of

America / Court of Equity and Truth (10105905 Tax Immunity Number for the Asiatic Nation of North America (see C.D.Cal

2:21-cv-05720-JAK-JDE, Doc. 5, EXHIBIT A)), On Behalf of Himself: General Executor-Caveator for Autochthonous

American Moor Alien (Friend) Republican Universal Government [AAMARU] Religious Consul Association Testamentary Trust

—Divine Immortal Spirit in Living Flesh and Blood Competent Natural Man of majority by firm sound mind and righteous upright

moral integrity, In Propria Persona proceeding in Sui Juris capacity, Settlor / Beneficiary / Paramount Security Interest Holder

(Authenticated Birth Certificate; Registered Copyright / Trademark — USPO No. RE 246 590 423 US; Registered Fictitious

Business Name — Florida Department of State No. G15000018576 (see C.D.Cal 2:21-cv-05720-JAK-JDE, Doc. 5, EXHIBIT B);

Maritime Lien No. RE 246 590 573 US — Putnam County Florida. Inst. No. 20105471421; California UCC #'s 10-7225252349,

10-7253610631, 147415317710, Kentucky UCC # 2014-2695084-41.01) over DEBTOR / INDIVIDUAL "GULLETT-EL,

TAQUAN RASHE" (any and all alphabetical and/or numerical variations and/or derivations), hereinafter, "Affiant." Affiant is

a lawful non-immigrant alien within the meaning of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393-633 (19 Howard), 15 L. Ed 691 (1857)1;

8 U.S.C. § 1101 — Alien(s), Alien (Foreign) Estate(s), and 18 U.S.C. ,§§ 1116(b)(1),(2),(3),(4) — Alien (Foreign) Government,

Alien (Foreign) Official(s), Internationally Protected Person(s), Family — irrespective of recognition by the United States. See

Fourth Judicial Circuit Duval County Florida Probate (Registrar) Court TAQUAN RASHIE GULLETT ESTATE NOTICE OF

TRUST # 16-2017-CP-001286 , DOC # 2017133137 , OR BK 18009 Pages 978-986*; TAQUAN RASHIE GULLETT ESTATE

CAVEAT # 16-2017-CP-001025 , DOC # 2017104658 , OR BK 17971 Pages 674-680*; TAQUAN RASHIE GULLETT

ESTATE Personal Replevin Claim # 16-2017-CA-002142 , DOC # 2017082163 , OR BK 17940 Pages 1656-1663*.

AAMARU Religious Consul Association Testamentary Trust situs is domiciled in Molly's Garden Countee, Timucuan,

Al Andalusia, Northwest Amexem [AI-Aqsa Al-Maghrib] (Morocco).

Affiant does rise and give honors and recognition to the Noble Qur'an and Sunnah, then Holy Koran() Circle Seven, Zodiac

Constitution AA222141 (Truth — Al), Suhuf, Tawrah, Zabur, Injil, Great Law of Peace, Treaty of Peace and Friendship (1787)*,

Madrid Convention for Protection in Morocco (1880)*, United Nations Charter (1945)*, United Nations ECOSOC Resolutions

1503 (XLVIII) (27 May 1970) and Resolution 1 (XXIV) (13 August 1971)*, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)*,

United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (14 December 1960)*, United

Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous (Autochthonous) Peoples and (2007)*, ROME STATUTE, Geneva Conventions,

HAGUE EVIDENCE CONVENTIONS*, Inter-American Conventions and all annexes thereto, Hague Convention on the Service

Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (15 November 1965)*, Apostille Convention

Abolishing the Requirement of Legislation for Foreign Public Documents (5 October 1961)*, Convention on International Access

to Justice (25 October 1980)*, Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (30 June 2005)*, Convention on the Law Applicable

to Trusts and On Their Recognition (1 July 1985)*, Convention on the Law Applicable to Certain Rights in Respect of Securities

Held with an Intermediary (5 July 2006)*, United Nations Convention on Civil and Political Rights (1966)*, Vienna Convention

on the Law of Treaties (1969)*, Organic Constitution for the United States of America (1787), Statute of the International Court

of Justice*, Statute of the International Criminal Court*, Spirit of Mandela International Tribunal **, and United Nations

International Tribunal 2021**.

JUDICIAL NOTICE (Fed. R. Evid. 201): see FINAL CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICITY: Visa / Passport M.S.T. of A., Bankr.M.D.FIa. 3:20-bk-00618-JAF

(filed Nov. 2 & 16, 2020); Bankr.N.D.Fla. 21-00401-KKS (filed Jan. 29, 2021) (see C.D.Cal. 2:21-cv-05720-JAK-JDE, Doc. 5, EXHIBIT A).

See Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1872)— Rights of Religious Corporation / Expressed by Trust Conveyance.

*Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201, the Court takes judicial notice of relevant public records. See United States v. Raygoza-Garcia, 902 F.3d 994,

1001 (9th Cir. 2018) —a court may take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record. See Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 866 (9th Cir. 2002)

—taking judicial notice of filings in another proceeding. ** See www.spiritofmandela.org. **See www.tribunal2021.com.

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Whether a non-unanimous verdict in C.D.Cal. # 2:14-cr-00725-CAS (there is no verdict at all as to 18 U.S.C. §

2(b))2, in violation of clearly established law, in violation of binding Supreme Court precedent, in violation of the

Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment, is plain error, reversible error, and manifest miscarriage of justice which

constitutes Genocide pursuant to an "official Federal policy" of retaliation.

Whether a duplicitous indictment on all Counts (1, 2, 3, 4) of C.D.Cal. # 2:14-cr-00725-CAS (each Count

conjunctively combines two separate and distinct offenses (18 U.S.C. § 2(b) withl8 U.S.C. §§ 287 & 1521)3, in

violation of clearly established law, in violation of binding Supreme Court precedent, in violation of the Fifth

Amendment and Sixth Amendment, is plain error, reversible error, and manifest miscarriage of justice which

constitutes Genocide pursuant to an "official Federal policy" of retaliation.

Whether a failure to cure / remedy duplicity by a specific unanimity jury instruction in C.D.Cal. # 2:14-cr-00725CAS (there is no specific unanimity jury instruction at all as to 18 U.S.C. § 2(b))4, in violation of clearly

established law, in violation of binding Supreme Court precedent, in violation of the Fifth Amendment and Sixth

Amendment, is plain error, reversible error, and manifest miscarriage of justice which constitutes Genocide pursuant

to an "official Federal policy" of retaliation.

Whether no evidence to prove the elements of 18 U.S.C. § 2(b) (in fact, there is no verdict or conviction for 18

U.S.C. & 2(b))5, and insufficient evidence to prove the elements of 18 U.S.C. §§ 287, 1521, in violation of clearly

established law, in violation of binding Supreme Court precedent, in violation of the Fifth Amendment and Sixth

Amendment, are plain error, reversible error, and manifest miscarriage of justice which constitutes Genocide pursuant

to an "official Federal policy" of retaliation. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, at 482 (1994) — establishing

the basis for the damages claim necessarily demonstrates the invalidity of the conviction.

Nowhere in the verdict form does it show or even mention 18 U.S.C. § 2(b). Affiant did not "willfully cause" an agent, another

person, or an intermediary, to allegedly violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 287, 1521. Affiant is actually innocent.

3 Affiant nevertheless retains his Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous jury verdict, and may challenge the defective duplicitous

Indictment as violating that constitutionally protected right.

Nowhere in the jury instructions is 18 U.S.C. § 2(b) shown or mentioned.

5 There is no evidence from which a rational prudent man or woman of the grand jury could have found the facts and circumstances

sufficient to establish probable cause to indict, nor any evidence from which a rational trier of fact of the petit jury could have

found sufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict — the entire Indictment / Judgment / Case. "No person shall be

made to suffer on the onus of a criminal conviction except upon sufficient proof — defined as evidence necessary to convince a

trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of every element of the offense." See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970)

"A claim that a conviction is based on a record lacking any evidence relevant to the crucial elements of the offense is a claim

with serious constitutional overtones." See Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, n.12 (1974); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.

307, at 314-315 (1979); Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U.S. 199, 204-205 (1960); Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 82-83 (1935).

LIST OF PARTIES AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

1. The parties are: (A) Gullett-El, Taquan Rashe; (B) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; (C) UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; (D) UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; (E) FEDERAL BUREAU OF

PRISONS; (F) INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; (G) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

NINTH CIRCUIT; (H) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT;

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES DIVISION;

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION;

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; (L) UNITED STATES PROBATION

OFFICE; (M) Lucy Salas, Probation Officer; (N) Jeffrey Thomason, Acting Chief U.S. Probation; (0) Merrick

B. Garland, United States Attorney General; (P) Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Solicitor General.

2. Affiant-Petitioner has no corporate interests to disclose.

3. The judgments rendered in the Ninth Circuit (C.D. Cal. Case Nos. 2:14-cr-00725-CAS / 2:19-cv-10247-CAS,

9th Cir. Nos. 20-55808, 21-56275, 21-71442, 22-55062) and Eleventh Circuit (Bankr.M.D.Fla. Case No. 3:20-bk00618-JAF / Bankr.M.D.Fla. Case No. 3:20-ap-00030-JAF, 11th Cir. Nos. 21-13426, 21-13427, 21-13428,

21-13429) and Federal Circuit (D.D.C. 1:15-cv-00652-EGS-RMM) have resulted in conflicting Circuit

resolutions arising out of the one and same transaction which shows unusual, exceptional, special circumstances

and the high probability that Affiant-Petitioner will succeed on appeal. Also, the issues presented for review

constitute important and novel constitutional issues likely to reoccur in the future, which calls for the supervisory

authority (aid of appellate jurisdiction) of the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2101(e). See S. Ct. R. 10(a), (c),

S.Ct.R. 11.

4. Affiant-Petitioner is currently unlawfully detained and proceeding In Propria Persona, therefore, one

original of the Petition for Rehearing, alone, suffices. See S. Ct. R. 12.2, 39.2.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

iii

NOTICE

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

LIST OF PARTIES AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

viii — xiv

CASES INVOLVED

Affidavit for Rehearing

Conclusion

Certificate of Good Faith

Certificate of Compliance with Page Limits

Commercial Verification

xvi

Certificate of Service

xvii

INDEX TO APPENDIX

xviii

vii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Noble Qur'an and Sunnah

Advisory Opinion on the Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the

Service of the United Nations (1948-1949) [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 174

(digested in 43 Am. J. Int'l. L. 589 (1949)

Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, n.12 (1974)

v, 2

Anderson v. Watt, 138 U.S. 694 (1891)

Apostille Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legislation

for Foreign Public Documents (5 October 1961)

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)

5, 8

Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 82-83 (1935)

v, 2

Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 73-74 (1996)

Connor v. Coleman, 440 U.S. 612, 624 (1979)

Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (30 June 2005)

Convention on International Access to Justice (25 October 1980)

Convention on the Law Applicable to Certain Rights

in Respect of Securities Held with an Intermediary (5 July 2006)

Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and On Their Recognition (1 July 1985)

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

(102 Stat. 3045, Dec. 9, 1948, U.N.T.S. 278)

passim

Denny v. City of Albany, 247 F.3d 1172, at 1190 (11th Cir. 2001)

Dickerson v. Alachua County Comm 'n, 200 F.3d 761, at 768-770, n.9 (11th Cir. 2000)

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393-633 (19 Howard), 15 L. Ed 691 (1857)

FTC v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597 (1966)

Geneva Conventions

Great Law of Peace

Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 577 (2004)

6, 8

Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents

in Civil or Commercial Matters (15 November 1965)

HAGUE EVIDENCE CONVENTIONS

v, 4, 5

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, at 482 (1994)

Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 866 (9th Cir. 2002)

Holy Koran Circle Seven

7, 8

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, at 429 (1976)

Injil

In re Robinson, 776 F.2d 30, at 41 (2nd Cir. 1985)

In re Special Proceedings, 373 F.3d 37, at 41-44 (1" Cir. 2004)

10, 14

v, 2

In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970)

Inter-American Conventions and all annexes thereto

International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)

International Tribunal Renders Verdict Finding United States Guilty

of a Variety of Human Rights Abuses Including Genocide

and Crimes Against Humanity (Spirit of Mandela International Tribunal

www.spiritofmandela.org , United Nations International Tribunal 2021

www.tribuna12021.com)

passim

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, at 314-315 (1979)

v, 2

Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 138 S. Ct. 1386 (2018)

Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 455 (2004)

6, 8

Laura B. Janes Claim (United States v. Mexico),

United States and Mexico General Claims Commission, 1926,

[1927] Opinions of Commissioners 108, 4 U.N.R.I.A.A. 82

Leech, Oliver, & Sweeny, The International Legal System 768, at 629 (1973)

Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, 138 S. Ct. 1945, at 1955 (2018)

5, 7, 8

iv, 9, 13

Madrid Convention for Protection in Morocco (1880)

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 147 (1803)

McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, at 1034 (11 th Cir. 2000)

Organic Constitution for the United States of America (1787)

Organic Constitution for the United States of America 5th Amendment

passim

Organic Constitution for the United States of America 6th Amendment

passim

O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 485, 503 (1974)

Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 (1962)

Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, at 484-485 (1986)

Proceedings of the American Society of International Law 20-22 (1910)

Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069 (11th Cir. 1986) (en banc)

6, 14

Restatement, Second, Foreign Relations Law of the United States, § 165-193 (1965)

12, 13

Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass 'n, 319 U.S. 21, 25 (1943)

ROME STATUTE

Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004)

Spirit of Mandela International Tribunal

passim

Statute of the International Court of Justice

Statute of the International Criminal Court

Suhuf

TAQUAN RASHIE GULLETT ESTATE CAVEAT, 4th Jud. Cir. Duval Co. Fl. # 16-2017-CP-001025,

DOC # 2017104658, OR BK 17971 Pages 674-680

TAQUAN RASHIE GULLETT ESTATE NOTICE OF TRUST, 4th Jud. Cir. Duval Co. Fl.

# 16-2017-CP-001286, DOC # 2017133137, OR BK 18009 Pages 978-986

TAQUAN RASHIE GULLETT ESTATE Personal Replevin Claim, 4th Jud. Cir. Duval Co. Fl.

# 16-2017-CA-002142, DOC # 2017082163, OR BK 17940 Pages 1656-1663

Tawrah

The Western Sahara Opinion (1974-1975) [1975] I.C.J. Rep. 6

Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U.S. 199, 204-205 (1960)

v, 2

Treaty of Peace and Friendship (1787)

iv, 9, 12, 13

United Nations Charter (59 Stat. 1046 — June 26, 1945)

Articles 1(3), 55(c), 56, 62(2), 68, and 76(c)

iv, 9, 13

United Nations Convention on Civil and Political Rights (1966)

iv, 9, 13

United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence

to Colonial Countries and Peoples (14 December 1960)

iv, 9, 13

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous (Autochthonous) Peoples and (2007)

iv, 9, 13

United Nations ECOSOC Resolutions 1503 (XLVIII) (27 May 1970)

iv, 9, 13

United Nations International Tribunal 2021

passim

United Nations Resolution 1 (XXIV) (13 August 1971)

iv, 9, 13

United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 455, at 477 (1996)

United States v. De La Garza, 516 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2008)

United States v. Heckler, 428 F. Supp. 269 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)

3, 5

United States v. Jones, 620 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D.Mass. May 18, 2009)

10, 14

United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950)

United States v. Raygoza-Garcia, 902 F.3d 994, 1001 (9th Cir. 2018)

United States v. Stevens, Cr. No. 08-231 (E.G.S.) (D.D.C. Apr. 7, 2009) (Order) (Docket No. 375)

United States v. United States District Court, 334 U.S. 258, 263 (1948)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

10, 14

iv, 9, 13

University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405 (11th Cir. 1999)

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)

Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1872)

Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 392 (1914)

W. Friedman, 0. Lissitzyn & R. Pugh, International Law Cases and Materials 154, at 201 (1969)

William E. Chapman Claim (United States v. Mexico),

United States and Mexico General Claims Commission,

[1930-31] Opinions of Commissioners 121, 4 U.N.R.I.A.A. 632

William T Way Claim (United States v. Mexico),

United States and Mexico General Claims Commission,

[1928-29] Opinion of Commissioners 94, 4 U.N.R.I.A.A. 391

Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92 (1921)

Wisconsin Dep 't. of Corrections v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 392-393 (1998)

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373 (1886)

Zabur

Zodiac Constitution AA222141 (Truth — A1)

xii

18'

STATUTES

8 U.S.C. § 1101

11 U.S.C. § 524

11 U.S.C. § 727

18 U.S.C. § 2(b)

passim

18 U.S.C. § 241

18 U.S.C. § 287

passim

18 U.S.C. § 1091

passim

18 U.S.C. § 1093

passim

18 U.S.C. §§ 1116(b)(1),(2),(3),(4)

18 U.S.C. § 1521

passim

18 U.S.C. § 3006A

26 U.S.C. § 7214

28 U.S.C. § 1350

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)

28 U.S.C. § 1746

ii, iii, xvi

28 U.S.C. § 2101(e)

vi, 8, 10

28 U.S.C. § 3002(15)(A)(B)(C)

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Cal. Evid. Code §§ 450 et seq.

xvi

Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1400 et seq.

xvi

Fla. Stat. § 92.525

xvi

Fla. Stat. § 90.301

xvi

Fla. Stat. § 90.902

xvi

Title 3 Cal.Civ.P. § 2015.5

xvi

16)

RULES

Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a)(2)

10, 14

Fed. R. Evid. 201

passim

Fed. R. Evid. 301

ii, iii

Fed. R. Evid. 902(10)

Fla. Stat. 90.201

passim

S. Ct. R. 10(a), (c)

S. Ct. R. 11

vi, 8, 10

S. Ct. R. 12.2

S. Ct. R. 17.1

S. Ct. R. 17.3

iii

S. Ct. R. 20.1

S. Ct. R. 29

xvii

S. Ct. R. 33.1(d)

S. Ct. R. 33.2(b)

S. Ct. R. 39.1

S. Ct. R. 39.2

S. Ct. R. 44

S. Ct. R. 44.1

S. Ct. R. 44.2

U.C.C. § 3-305

U.C.C. § 3-601

xiv

CASES INVOLVED

C.D.Cal. Case No. 2:14-cr-00725-CAS (lead), United States v. Gullett-El, Taquan Rashe,

Entry of Judgment: March 15, 2017.

D.D.C. Case No. 1:15-cv-00652-EGS, United States v. Gullett-El, Taquan Rashe,

Entry of Judgment: pending.

C.D.Cal. Case No. 2:19-cv-10247-CAS, Gullett-El, Taquan Rashe v. United States,

Entry of Judgment: July 13, 2020

C.D.Cal. Case No. 2:21-cv-05720-JAK-JDE, Gullett-El, Taquan Rashe v. Lucy Salas, Probation Officer,

et al., Entry of Judgment: November 18, 2021.

C.D.Cal. Case No. 2:21-cv-09264-JAK-JDE, Gullett-El, Taquan Rashe v. Lucy Salas, Probation Officer,

et al., Entry of Judgment: December 15, 2021.

Ninth Circuit Appeal Case No. 20-55808, Gullett-El, Taquan Rashe v. United States,

Entry of Judgment: December 17, 2021

Ninth Circuit Appeal Case No. 21-56275, Gullett-El, Taquan Rashe v. Lucy Salas, Probation Officer,

et al., Entry of Judgment: January 14, 2022.

Ninth Circuit Original Case No. 21-71442, Gullett-El, Taquan Rashe v. United States,

Entry of Judgment: March 23, 2022.

Ninth Circuit Appeal Case No. 22-55062, Gullett-El, Taquan Rashe v. Lucy Salas, Probation Officer,

et al., Entry of Judgment: pending.

Bankr.M.D.Fla. Case No. 3:20-bk-00618-JAF (Chapter 7 Bankruptcy), In re: Gullett-El, Taquan Rashe,

Entry of Judgment: September 27, 2021.

Bankr.M.D.Fla. Case No. 3:20-ap-00030-JAF (Ch. 7 Adversary Proceeding), Gullett-El, Taquan Rashe v.

United States, et al., Entry of Judgment: July 22, 2020.

[11th Cir. Appeal # 21-13426 (pending Ch. 7 Adversary Proceeding Appeal)], judgment pending.

[11th Cir. Appeal # 21-13427 (pending Ch. 7 Adversary Proceeding Appeal)], judgment pending.

[11th Cir. Appeal # 21-13428 (pending Ch. 7 Adversary Proceeding Appeal)], judgment pending.

[11th Cir. Appeal # 21-13429 (pending Ch. 7 Adversary Proceeding Appeal)], judgment pending.

Supreme Court Case No. 18-6630, In re: Taquan Gullett, Entry of Judgment: February 19, 2019.

Supreme Court Case No. 18-9138, Taquan Rahshe Gullett-El v. Timothy J. Corrigan, et al.,

Entry of Judgment: November 25, 2019.

Affidavit For Rehearing

Affiant presents this Affidavit for a rehearing of the cause, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (S.Ct. # 21-7141),

and in support of the cause, Affiant respectfully shows that this matter contains several crucial factual and procedural

distinctions of a substantial and/or controlling effect which were not previously presented, and which warrant a

different determination, and are further evidence of the directly related, persistent, and continued pattern and practice

of Genocide and denial of redress for grievances, by United States' officers and employees, pursuant to an "official

Federal policy" of retaliations. See S.Ct.R. 44.1, 44.2.

On October 27, 2021, a distinguished panel of international jurists found the United States guilty of a variety of

human rights abuses, including genocide and crimes against humanity. See EXHIBIT A - International Tribunal

Renders Verdict Finding United States Guilty of a Variety of Human Rights Abuses Including Genocide and Crimes

Against Humanity (Spirit of Mandela International Tribunal www.spiritofmandela.org , United Nations International

Tribunal 2021 wwvv.tribunal2021.com), Pgs. 1-15. The International Tribunal on Human Rights Abuses Against

Black, Brown and Indigenous Peoples was held Oct. 23-25, 2021 at The Malcolm X and Dr. Betty Shabazz Memorial

and Educational Center in Washington Heights, New York City, aka Turtle Island, Lenape land. The main theme of

the Tribunal was "We Still Charge Genocide" in recognition of the "We Charge Genocide: The Crime of Government

Against the Negro People" — a 1951 petition to the United Nations signed by dozens of notables including Dr. W.E.B.

Du Bois, Claudia Jones, Harry Haywood and Paul Robeson.

The 2021 indictment is against the United States of America, represented by its President, Department of State,

federal and state policing agencies and other governmental institutions. The Panel of Jurists heard testimony

emphasizing the millions upon millions of Indigenous and African peoples murdered, disappeared and nearly

exterminated over a period from 1492 through the present. Further, the witnesses and prosecution argued that the

wrongs have been historic and deliberate, with colonization, racism, militarism, imperialism, materialism,

criminalization, patriarchy, neocolonialism and internal colonialism as part of the larger process that now manifests

itself in medical and digital apartheid, chemical warfare, environmental violence and racism, disinvestment and a

pandemic of accessible guns and drugs — with the majority of violence perpetrated by police, security forces, and

courts in the false claim of upholding law and order.

See S. Ct. 18-9138 (Pet. for Cert. / Pet. for Reh'g.) [i.e. Order and Injunction, M.D.FIa. 3:17-cv-00881-TJC-JBT (Doc. 7, pgs. 1-17)1.

See S. Ct. 18-6630 (Pet. for Mandamus / Pet. for Reh'g). See Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, at 484-485 (1986) —The Supreme

Court holds that a county prosecutor's order to forcibly enter the plaintiff's clinic was a "municipal policy." "The Supreme Court

has recognized the right to petition as one of the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights — 'high in the

hierarchy of First Amendment values.'" See Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, 138 S. Ct. 1945, at 1955 (2018) (quoting BE

& K Constr. Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S. 516, 524 (2002)). An official retaliatory policy can also be difficult to dislodge. There can be little

practical recourse when the government itself orchestrates the retaliation. For these reasons, when retaliation against protected

speech is elevated to the level of official policy, there is compelling need for, adequate avenues of redress. See Lozman, at 19541955.

Statements were made testifying to new forms of colonialism which include the Prison Industrial Complex, the

Military Industrial Complex and the commercialization of our health and privatization / commodification of all

social services. The testimonies include substantial evidence of the erasure of histories; distortion and cultural

misappropriation contributes to and exacerbates the attempted invisibilization and denial of People's basic humanity.

The 2021 International Tribunal on U.S. Human Rights Abuses Against Black, Brown and Indigenous Peoples was

initiated by a U.S. coalition, In the Spirit of Mandela. Its own recognized legacy, based on efforts dating from the

1951 "We Charge Genocide" petition to the present, rests on the idea that any examination of U.S. human rights

must be done in an international context. The Panel of Jurists came together as an independent body made up of

legal scholars, human rights advocates, and activists and community leaders.

Utilizing the International Criminal Law on Genocide and other instruments (see EXHIBIT B - Convention on

the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (102 Stat. 3045, Dec. 9, 1948, U.N.T.S. 278), Pgs. 1-4), the

Panel convened to hear and review the testimony organized by Spirit of Mandela Legal Team. The Accused, though

informed, did not respond to the charges and indictment against them, nor did they appear as invited to present

a defense (i.e. Default, Default Judgment). The jurists unanimously found the United States guilty of the following

five counts (which attorney Nkechi Taifa explained fit well within the internationally-accepted definition of genocide,

see EXHIBIT C - Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987 codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1091 et seq., Pgs. 1-7):

(I) Police violence and killings; (II) Mass incarceration; (III) Political Prisoners and Prisoners of War; (IV)

Environmental racism; (V) Public health inequities. The verdict finding United States Guilty of Genocide and

Crimes Against Humanity was read aloud before the United Nations. Signed, October 25, 2021, Panel of Jurists,

Church Center of the United Nations.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (102 Stat. 3045, Dec. 9, 1948,

U.N.T.S. 278) is codified into the Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987 at 18 U.S.C. § 1091 et seq.

attaching criminal penalties to the norm against genocide with universal jurisdiction for enforcement. See EXHIBIT

C. See Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004). See Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 138 S. Ct. 1386 (2018). See

also 28 U.S.C. § 1350. Therefore, the United States' Courts have jurisdiction over genocide damages claims stated in

S.Ct. # 21-7141 , and pursuant to the Rome Statute, Statute of the International Court of Justice, and Statute of the

"It is axiomatic that a conviction upon a charge not made or upon a charge not tried constitutes a denial of due process. A person cannot

incur the loss of liberty for a criminal offense without notice and a meaningful opportunity to defend, and such opportunity, if not the

right to trial itself, presumes as well that a total want of evidence to support a charge will conclude that case in favor of the accused;

accordingly, a criminal conviction based upon a record wholly devoid of any relevant evidence of a crucial element of an offense is

constitutionally infirm, the most elemental of due process rights being freedom from a wholly arbitrary deprivation of liberty." See

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, at 314-315 (1979). See Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, n.12 (1974); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358

(1970). See Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U.S. 199, 204-205 (1960) — striking a conviction under the Due Process Clause when "the record

[was] entirely lacking in evidence" of guilt —such that it could not even establish probable cause. A conviction is not supported by evidence,

and does not comport with due process of law, where the evidence fails to prove all the elements of the offense. See Berger v. United

States, 295 U.S. 78, 82-83 (1935) — the general rule is that allegations and proof must correspond.

International Criminal Court, the United Nations (UN), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International

Criminal Court (ICC) have jurisdiction over genocide damages claims stated in S.Ct. # 21-7141.

Presented in S.Ct. # 21-7141 is a preponderating weight of highly probative admissible evidence of over eleven

(11) years of Officers, Agents, and Employees of the United States' agencies, departments, and/or instrumentalities,

engaging in a consistent pattern and practice of Denial of Justice, Denial of Redress, Denial of Access To the Courts,

Denial of Equality Before the Law, Arbitrary and Capricious Decisions / Actions, Abuse of Office / Discretion /

Authority, Discrimination and/or Deprivation and/or Conspiracy to Deprive and/or Resistance to the full enjoyment

of Affiant's constitutionally protected Natural Rights, Human Rights, and/or Civil Rights / Liberties, privileges, and/or

immunities — in violation of International Law (International Standard of Justice), National Law, and Personal Law

— by fraud, duress, obstruction of justice, egregious abuse of process / office, selective / retaliatory / malicious

prosecution, false arrest / imprisonment , piracy, kidnapping, peonage / slavery, war crimes, oppression (unlawful

collection activity), apartheid (systemic racial discrimination), prolonged arbitrary detention, trespass, ultra vires acts,

de son tort acts in escheatment and reversion of estates and hereditaments, privateering, terrorism, and other grave

breaches of the fundamental guarantees of the United Nations Charter including without limitation all treaties* abovelisted on Page iv Paragraph 3 of this Petition for Rehearing— which constitutes Genocide. See EXHIBIT B & C.

This Court's denial of redress and relief for the issues presented in S.Ct. # 21-7141, which are in violation of

clearly established law and binding Supreme Court precedent, does constitute Genocide pursuant to an "official

Federal policy" of retaliation.

On February 24, 2020, Bankr.M.D.Fla. 3:20-bk-00618-JAF commenced. JUDICIAL NOTICE: Appellant's Initial

Brief (AIB) 11th Cir. #'s 21-13426 & 21-13429. The $74,431 unlawful Internal Revenue Service (IRS) lien and the

$100,000 unlawful California Franchise Tax Board (CFTB) assessment being collected3 from the alleged "False,

Fictitious, and Fraudulent" tax return transaction of C.D.Cal. 2:14-cr-00725-CAS, and the $400 erroneous/wrongful

conviction special assessment from C.D.Cal. 2:14-cr-00725-CAS were listed as dischargeable debts on the Chapter 7

bankruptcy schedules. See AIB Appendix (App.) Doc. 31 Pgs. 474-562. The Chapter 7 (Ch. 7) Creditors and

Adversary Proceeding (A.P.) Defendants-Respondent(s) [i.e. United States' Federal corporation, agencies,

departments, instrumentalities (28 U.S.C. § 3002(15)(A)(B)(C))] were given adequate fair notice by Bankruptcy

Commencement Notice from the Bankruptcy Noticing Center. The Ch. 7 Creditors and A.P.Defendants-

3 See Report and Recommendation (R&R) (D.D.C. 1:15-cv-00652-EGS Doc. 22), Pages 4-5 — R&R concedes that the IRS/ABA, since 2011,

has been and is currently collecting on the alleged "false, fictitious, and fraudulent" 2010 tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7214 and

others. Title 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(8)'s statutory specification requiring reporting in writing is reasonable prior notice that this felony must

be reported to proper authorities, which makes 18 U.S.C. § 4 (Misprison of Felony) applicable to all United States' officers, agents, and

employees involved with the cases from which this current proceeding has arisen including without limitation Supreme Court No. 217140 / 21-7141, C.D.Cal. 2:14-cr-00725-CAS, 9th Cir. ifs 20-55808 / 21-56275 / 21-71442 / 22-55062, D.D.C. 1:15-cv-652-EGS,

Bankr.M.D.Fla. #'s 3:20-k-618-JAF / 3:20-ap-00030-JAF, M.D.Fla. tt's 3:20-cv-01047-TJC / 3:20-cv-01062-TJC / 3:20-cv-01065-TJC / 3:20-cv01075-TJC, and 11th Cir. It's 21-13426 / 21-13427 / 21-13428 / 21-13429. See United States v. Heckler, 428 F. Supp. 269 (S.D.N.Y. 1976).

abi

Respondent(s) were given additional fair notice by Affidavit For Adversary Proceeding, Bankr.M.D.Fla. 3:20-ap00030-JAF (D.E. 1, 123 pgs.). See AIB App. Doc. 14 Pgs. 56-178. The Adversary Proceeding commenced to

determine the dischargeability (523(a)(6) — willful and malicious injury, 523(a)(2) — false pretenses, false

representation, actual fraud), undue hardship (student loan debt), and any exception, of scheduled debts and proof of

claim/interest by Affiant. Also, to determine the validity, priority, or extent of lien or other interest in property, for

recovery of money/property (from fraudulent transfer), and for injunctive relief (enjoining oppression and genocide

by unlawful debt collection practices). See AIB App. Doc. 14 Pg. 56 - Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet.

Neither Ch.7 Creditors nor A.P.Defendants-Respondent(s) filed any objection or exception or complaint against

the discharge or dischargeability of any debt liability(ies) / obligations in Bankr.M.D.Fla. 3:20-bk-00618-JAF or

Bankr.M.D.Fla. 3:20-ap-00030-JAF. A.P.Defendants-Respondent(s) defaulted in Bankr.M.D.Fla. 3:20-ap-00030-JAF

on April 13, 2020. See AIB App. Doc. 21 Pgs. 303-315. The last day to oppose discharge or dischargeability in

Bankr.M.D.Fla. 3:20-bk-00618-JAF was June 19, 2020, and this date expired without any objection from Ch.7

Creditors or A.P.Defendants-Respondent(s) (i.e. Default).

There being no properly invoked provision that prevented the discharge of all the validly claimed debt liability(ies)

/ obligations, on July 23, 2020, as an operation of law, all of the debt liability(ies) / obligations were discharged by the

Order of Discharge entered in Bankr.M.D.Fla. 3:20-bk-00618-JAF. See AIB App. Doc. 5 Pgs. 12-13. See Fed. R.

Evid 301 — Rule of Presumption. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 524, 727. See In re Robinson, 776 F.2d 30, at 41 (2nd Cir. 1985).

Said Order of Discharge voids any judgment at any time obtained, and operates as an injunction against the

commencement or continuation of an action, the employment of process, or an act to collect or recover or offset against

personal liability or property of the debtor. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 524, 525, 727. Discharge in Bankruptcy Proceeding

M.D.FIa. 3:20-bk-00618-JAF is an additional defense to C.D.Cal 2:14-cr-00725-CAS on Certiorari / Habeas

Review (S.Ct. 21-7140 / 21-7141) to 9th Cir. #'s 20-55808, 21-56275, 21-71442, 22-55062, and is an additional

defense in the directly related civil action D.D.C. 1:15-cv-00652-EGS — Suit To Enforce Federal Tax Lien. See

UCC

3-305 — Defenses and Claims in Recoupment; 3-601 — Discharge and Effect of Discharge.

The preclusive issues adduced from the bankruptcy proceeding impugn and invalidate the conviction and sentence

in C.D.Cal. 2:14-cr-00725-CAS under the doctrine of judicial estoppel by fully rebutting the presumptions of:

(A) jurisdictional standing to sue; (B) probable cause; (C) prosecutorial regularity underlying the charging decision;

(D) regularity of grand jury proceedings; and (E) a rational trier of fact having found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable

doubt for the essential elements of the alleged crimes. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, at 482 (1994) —

establishing the basis for the damages claim necessarily demonstrates the invalidity of the conviction.

JUDICIAL NOTICE: Objection to Report and Recommendation, D.D.C. 1:15-cv-00652-EGG-RMM, Doc. 23. There

is a strong presumption with an unassailable inference that the alleged criminal investigation and prosecution of

C.D.Cal. 2:14-cr-00725-CAS was instituted for improper purposes — as a subterfuge for the collection of the

discharged debts and to gain an advantage in the directly related civil proceeding D.D.C. 1:15-cv-00652-EGS (Suit To

Enforce Federal Tax Lien).

Affiant's claims stated in the entire Bankr.M.D.Fla. 3:20-bk-00618-JAF Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Proceeding and

the entire Bankr.M.D.Fla. 3:20-ap-00030-JAF Adversary Proceeding, currently on appellate review in 11 th Cir. #'s

21-13426 & 21-13429, consists of apartheid, oppression, prolonged arbitrary detention, harassment, discrimination,

deliberate indifference, obstruction of justice, unlawful collection activity, false arrest/imprisonment, unlawful

detainment, duress, egregious abuse of process, and retaliatory / selective / malicious prosecution, as a subterfuge for

the collection of the $74,431, $100,000, and $400 discharged debts — in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 72144, in violation

of bankruptcy automatic stay, and in violation of discharge injunction —which constitute Genocide and substantiate

damages and dischargeability. See EXHIBIT B & C. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, at 482 (1994) —

establishing the basis of the damages claim necessarily demonstrates the invalidity of the conviction. See AIB

App. Doc. 34 Pg. 593 Prgh. 23(E). See AIB App. Doc. 35 Pg. 650 Prgh. 7. This Court's denial of redress and relief

for the issues presented in S.Ct. # 21-7141, which are in violation of clearly established law and binding Supreme

Court precedent, does constitute Genocide pursuant to an "official Federal policy" of retaliation.

The unlawful Order and Injunction of Supreme Court (S.Ct.) No. 18-9138 [M.D.Fla. 3:17-cv-00881-TJC, Doc. 7,

Pgs. 1-17 (see EXHIBIT D)] is an "official Federal policy" of retaliation and Genocide in denial of Affiant's First

Amendment protected right to petition for redress for grievances5. See AIB App. Doc. 44 Pgs. 793-809. The civil

action S.Ct. No. 18-9138 [M.D.Fla. 3:17-cv-00881-TJC-JBT] was unlawfully removed from State Court (4th Jud. Cir.

Duval Co. Fl. # 16-2017-CA-004274), therefore there is no subject-matter jurisdiction, therefore the Order and

Injunction S.Ct. No. 18-9138 [M.D.Fla. 3:17-cv-00881-TJC-JBT] is void, required by law to be vacated, required

by law to be remanded suasponte6*. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) — subject-matter jurisdiction cannot

4 Title 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(8)'s statutory specification requiring reporting in writing is reasonable prior notice that this felony must be

reported to proper authorities, which makes 18 U.S.C. § 4 (Misprison of Felony) applicable to all United States' officers, agents, and

employees involved with the cases from which this current proceeding has arisen including without limitation Supreme Court No.

21-7140 / 21-7141, C.D.Cal. 2:14-cr-00725-CAS, 9th Cir. Ws 20-55808 / 21-56275 / 21-71442 / 22-55062, D.D.C. 1:15-cv-652-EGS,

Bankr.M.D.Fla. #'s 3:20-k-618-JAF / 3:20-ap-00030-JAF, M.D.Fla. Ws 3:20-cv-01047-TJC / 3:20-cv-01062-TJC / 3:20-cv-01065-TJC / 3:20cv-01075-TJC, and 11th Cir. Ws 21-13426 / 21-13427 / 21-13428 / 21-13429. See United States v. Heckler, 428 F. Supp. 269 (S.D.N.Y. 1976).

5 See Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, at 484-485 (1986) — The Supreme Court holds that a county prosecutor's order to

forcibly enter the plaintiff's clinic was a "municipal policy." "The Supreme Court has recognized the right to petition as one of

the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights — 'high in the hierarchy of First Amendment values." See

Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, 138 S. Ct. 1945, at 1955 (2018) (quoting BE & K Constr. Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S. 516, 524

(2002)). An official retaliatory policy can also be difficult to dislodge. There can be little practical recourse when the

government itself orchestrates the retaliation. For these reasons, when retaliation against protected speech is elevated to the

level of official policy, there is compelling need for, adequate avenues of redress. See Lozman, at 1954-1955.

*M.D.Fla. 3:17-cv-00472-TJC-MCR and M.D.Fla. 3:17-cv-00440-TJC-JRK suffer from the same exact fatal jurisdictional defects and

are therefore void, required by law to be vacated, and required by law to be remanded sua sponte. See S.Ct. # 18-9138.

be forfeited or waived; accord United States v. De La Garza, 516 F.3d 1266 (11 th Cir. 2008); University of South

Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405 (11th Cir. 1999). Furthermore, the Eleventh Circuit holds that a

Procup injunction is unlawful. See Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069 (11th Cir. 1986) (en banc) — We hold that the

district court's injunction was overbroad.

The Supreme Court adheres to the "time of filing" rule regardless of the costs it imposes. See Grupo Dataflux v.

Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 577 (2004) (quoting Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 455 (2004)) — A litigant

generally may raise a federal court's lack of subject-matter jurisdiction at any time in the same civil action, even

initially at the highest appellate instance. For example, in Anderson v. Watt, 138 U.S. 694 (1891), the Supreme Court

dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction even though the case had been filed about five and a half (5 'A) years earlier,

the trial court had entered a decree ordering land to be sold four (4) years earlier, the sale had been made, exceptions

had been filed and overruled, and the case had come to the Court on appeal from the order confirming the land sale.

See Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 572 (2004) — "jurisdiction depending on the condition

of the party is governed by that condition, as it was at the commencement of the suit."

The Notice of Removal for S.Ct. No. 18-9138 [M.D.Fla. 3:17-cv-00881-TJC-JBT] was never properly served.

See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) — personal jurisdiction only exists if the (Notice

of Removal) is properly served. Only four of the 182 Defendants appeared and joined in the Removal in writing. See

Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92 (1921) — defendant must prove removal jurisdiction. See Case

Docket, S.Ct. No. 18-9138 [M.D.Fla. 3:17-cv-00881-TJC-JBTJ, AIB App. Doc. 45 Pgs. 810-830. The federal district

court must always remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, and must do so in the absence of a motion.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). See Wisconsin Dep't. of Corrections v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 392-393 (1998). See AIB

App Doc. 28 Pgs. 426-438.

The jurisdictional challenge to the unlawful Order and Injunction S.Ct. No. 18-9138 [M.D.Fla. 3:17-cv-00881TJC-JBT] was asserted and preserved by Motion To Remand in Petition For Certiorari S. Ct. # 18-9138. See Cert.

Pet. S.Ct. 18-9138, Pgs. 5-14, Paragraphs 1-30. Civil Case M.D.Fla. 3:17-cv-00881-TJC-JBT did not meet the

statutory and procedural requirements for removal and was not fit for federal adjudication at the time of the filing of

the Notice of Removal. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 73-74 (1996). See AIB App Doc. 29 Pgs. 439-462.

This Court's mixed findings of fact, law, jurisdiction, and reliance upon unlawful / unconstitutional void Order

and Injunction S.Ct. No. 18-9138 [M.D.Fla. 3:17-cv-00881-TJC-JBT1 to deny redress and relief in S.Ct. # 217141, in violation of clearly established law and binding Supreme Court precedent, constitutes plain error,

abuse of discretion, retaliation against protected speech, and Genocide pursuant to an "official Federal policy."

And what happens when denial of one's First Amendment protected right to petition for redress of grievances for

the constitutional infringements and abuses of office, which have occurred within the safeguards of the crucible of the

judicial process, is affected by an "official Federal policy73, of retaliation and Genocide implemented by officers,

agents, and employees presumed to have absolute immunity? See AIB App. Doc. 44 Pgs. 793-809. The United States'

officers', agents', and employees' official policy of retaliation and Genocide has branded Affiant and Affiant's Mother

as vexatious and abusive litigants for petitioning for redress of grievances, and the courts refuse to impose contempt

sanctions for violation of automatic stay and discharge injunction, which denies Affiant and Affiant's Mother the

protections of Bankruptcy as Congress has legislated. See AIB App. Doc. 47 Pgs. 833-846. Here and now, there is a

"compelling need for adequate avenues of redress." See Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, 138 S. Ct. 1945,

at 1954-1955 (2018). The Supreme Court has never suggested that the policy considerations which compel civil

immunity for certain government officials also place them beyond the reach of the criminal law. Even judges, cloaked

with absolute civil immunity for centuries, could be punished criminally for willful deprivations of constitutional rights

on the strength of 18 U.S.C. § 242, the criminal analog of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409,

at 429 (1976) (citing O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 485, 503 (1974)). The prosecutor would fare no better for any

willful acts8.

18. Although the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applies to public entities and its personnel (i.e. United States'

officers/employees)9, it would not bar Affiant's cause of action as the conduct in this matter and issues presented for

review fall into the clearly recognized exceptionsl° to the doctrine. To prove conspiracy, a plaintiff must show that

the parties reached an understanding/agreement to deny/impinge upon Affiant's federal rights — an actionable wrong

(See EXHIBIT D - Order and Injunction, S.Ct. No. 18-9138 [M.D.Fla. 3:17-cv-00881-TJC-JBT] — "official Federal

policy" of retaliation and Genocide = PROOF OF CONSPIRACY).

See FOOTNOTE 5

8 "...the liability of a prosecutor for unconstitutional behavior might induce a federal court in a habeas corpus proceeding to deny

a valid constitutional claim in order to protect the prosecutor..." quoting lmbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, at 437 (1976).

See Denny v. City of Albany, 247 F.3d 1172, at 1190 (11th Cir. 2001) — the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applies to public

entities such as the (Federal government) and its personnel.

The clearly recognized exceptions relevant to this matter are: (a) where the employees "engage in a series of discriminatory acts

as opposed to a single action" over a significant period of time (i.e. over 11 years) in the employment setting (See Dickerson v.

Alachua County Comm'n, 200 F.3d 761, at 768-770, n.9 (11th Cir. 2000)); and (b) where the conduct violates the federal criminal

Code (See McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, at 1034 (11th Cir. 2000)).

JUDICIAL NOTICE (Fed. R. Evid. 201): see Order and Injunction, M.D.Fla. 3:17-cv-881-TJC-JBT, Doc. 7, Pgs. 1-17); see S. Ct. 18-9138;

see 1st Amendment — freedom of speech, right to petition for redress of grievances; see 5th & 14th Amendments — right to due

process of law; see 14th Amendment — right to equal protection of the laws.

All of the foregoing does constitute Affiant's "Motion To Remand," vacate, and set aside the unlawful

Procup Order and Injunction S.Ct. No. 18-9138 [M.D.Fla 3:17-cv-00881-TJC-JBT]. "Preservation of judicial

integrity demands that unlawful intrusions should find 'no sanction in the judgments of the courts'. See

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 770 (2009) (quoting Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 392 (1914)). The remand

motion is resolved on the basis of the pleadings at the time of removal. The evidence considered on the motion to

remand is limited to the Complaint as it is stated at the time of removal and the Defendants' Notice of Removal. See

Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 577 (2004) — "a court's subject matter jurisdiction cannot

be expanded to account for the parties' litigation conduct." (quoting Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 456 (2004). See

Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 582 (2004) — "We decline to endorse a new exception to

a time-of-filing rule that has a pedigree of almost two centuries. The stability provided by our time-tested rule

weighs heavily against the approval of any new deviation."

Because of the unchecked Constitutional Rights, Natural Rights, and Human Rights infringements stated herein,

which have occurred within the "safeguards of the crucible of the judicial process," and pursuant to an "official Federal

policy" of retaliation and Genocide, there is a compelling need for adequate avenues of redress. See Lozman v. City

of Riviera Beach, Florida, 138 S. Ct. 1945, at 1954-1955 (2018). Moreover, "it is precisely the function of a judicial

proceeding to determine where the truth lies. The ability of courts, under carefully developed procedure, to

separate truth from falsity, and the importance of accurately resolving factual disputes in criminal (and civil)

cases are such that those involved in judicial proceedings should be 'given every encouragement to make a full

disclosure of all pertinent information within their knowledge." Quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, at

439-440 (1976). For violations of the international standard of justice, officials who are presumed to be cloaked with

absolute immunity are not beyond the reach of the criminal law. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, at 429 (1976).

And for these attendant and compelling reasons, the exercise of the supervisory power of the Supreme Court, United

Nations Security Council (UN), International Court of Justice (ICJ), and International Criminal Court (ICC), is

required. See 28 U.S.C. § 2101(e). See Supreme Court Rule (S. Ct. R.) 11.

As aforementioned, Affiant and Affiant's Mother have been subjected to Denial of Justice, Denial of Equality

Before the Law, Natural Rights infringements, Human Rights infringements, Constitutional Rights infringements,

selective / retaliatory / malicious prosecution, egregious abuse of process / abuse of office, apartheid (systemic racial

discrimination), prolonged arbitrary detention, oppression (unlawful collection activity) in contempt of bankruptcy

stay and discharge injunction, persistent denial of substantive and procedural due process, and persistent denial of

redress for grievances — for over eleven (11) years and counting — pursuant to an "official Federal policy" of

retaliation and Genocide by United States' officers, agents, and employees, and within the "safeguards of the crucible

of the judicial process." Without question and without a doubt, there is a compelling need for the supervisory authority

and intervention of the Supreme Court and the international community, including without limitation the United

Nations' bodies, organs, and specialized agencies.

The United States' "safeguards of the crucible of the judicial process" are unwilling or unable to act to prevent

and redress the foregoing infringements and abuses of Natural Rights, Human Rights, and Constitutional Rights. See

United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 455, at 477 (1996)12. Whether one is afforded equal protection of the law, due

process, and redress for grievances, may not be based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, color, religion,

political status, or some other arbitrary classification. See Oyler v.Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 (1962). "A defendant

may demonstrate that the administration of a criminal law is 'directed so exclusively against a particular class of

persons... with a mind so unequal and oppressive' that the system of prosecution amounts to 'a practical denial' of

equal protection of the law." See Armstrong, at 465 (quoting Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373 (1886)).

In an exercise of the realization of the Natural Rights and Human Rights enumerated and guaranteed in the United

Nations Charter (1945) and all annexes thereto13, and Treaty of Peace and Friendship (1787) and all annexes thereto14,

Affiant respectfully invites the exercise of the supervisory power of the Supreme Court, United Nations Security

Council (UN), International Court of Justice (ICJ), and International Criminal Court (ICC), by the appointment of

disinterested counsel for Special Investigation and Public Prosecution of an Ex Rel. Action / Humanitarian

Intervention15 by: (i) Original Action / Amicus Curiae in the Supreme Court of the United States; (ii) Original Action

/ Advisory Opinion in the International Court of Justice; and/or (iii) Original Action / Advisory Opinion in the

International Criminal Court; for such equitable relief as to insure the minimum corrective measures necessary, access

to adequate redress, and effective remedies for all infringements, for the honorable resolution of this matter and the

entirety of the directly related actions.

The Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction includes the Supreme Court's exercise of its general supervisory

control over the federal court system. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950). See Marbury v.

Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 147 (1803) —term "'appellate jurisdiction' is to be taken in its larger sense and implies

in its nature the right of superintending the inferior tribunals." See Connor v. Coleman, 440 U.S. 612, 624 (1979) —

when lower federal court refuses to give effect to, or misconstrues the mandate of the Supreme Court, its action may

be controlled by the Supreme Court. The authority of the appellate court "is not confined to the issuance of writs in

See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, at 477 (1996) —The United States Attorney is a member and officer of the bar of

that District Court. As such, the (U.S. Attorney) has a duty to the judges of that Court to maintain the standards of the profession

in the performance of (their) official functions. If a District Judge has reason to suspect that the (U.S. Attorney), or a member of

(their) staff, has singled out particular defendants for prosecution, it is surely appropriate for the judge to determine whether

there is a factual basis for such concern.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948); United Nations Declaration of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples

(1960); United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous (Autochthonous) Peoples (2007).

Madrid Convention for Protection in Morocco (1880).

JUDICIAL NOTICE: Affidavit of Information, Report, and Preferral of Charges, 4th Jud. Cir. Duval Co. Fl. 16-2017-CA-004274 (Doc. 4)

Pgs. 47-69; Charges, Specifications, Elements, Invoice, Pgs. 70-417, and True Bills. Pgs. 84-91 (PDF) (or Pgs. 75-82 bottom-ofdocument pagination).

aid of jurisdiction already acquired by appeal but extends to those cases which are within its appellate jurisdiction

although no appeal has been perfected." See FTC v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597 (1966) (quoting Roche v.

Evaporated Milk Ass'n, 319 U.S. 21, 25 (1943)). This authority extends to support an ultimate power to review,

although not immediately and directly involved. See United States v. United States District Court, 334 U.S. 258, 263

(1948). See S. Ct. R. 11, 17.1, 20.1. See 28 U.S.C. 2101(e).

In the interest of justice, Affiant respectfully invites the Supreme Court, UN, ICJ, and ICC, to appoint disinterested

counsel for Special Investigation and Public Prosecution of the Ex Rel. Action / Humanitarian Intervention, as was

done in the case of United States Senator Ted Stevens. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a)(2). See In re Special Proceedings,

373 F.3d 37, at 41-44 (1St Cir. 2004). See United States v. Stevens, Cr. No. 08-231 (E.G.S.)16* (D.D.C. Apr. 7, 2009)

(Order) (Docket No. 375). FAIR NOTICE: United States' officers, agents, employees may be subject to criminal

liability under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 4, 241, 242, 401, 402, 1091, 1201, 1341, 1512, 1513, 1581-1595 et seq., 1651, 2441,

3691; 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2; as well as civil liability under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983/Bivens, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1994,

1995, 2000; 11 U.S.C. §§ 105, 362, 524, 525, 727; and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1346, 1350 - for fraud, duress, obstruction

of justice, egregious abuse of process/office, selective / retaliatory / malicious prosecution, false arrest/imprisonment,

piracy, kidnapping, peonage/slavery, genocide, war crimes, oppression (unlawful collection activity), apartheid

(systemic racial discrimination), prolonged arbitrary detention, and others.

It is well-settled that the United Nations has sufficient legal capacity to sponsor an international claim against a

state, and may even bring such a claim against a nonmember. See Advisory Opinion on the Reparation for Injuries

Suffered in the Service of the United Nations (1948-1949) [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 174 (digested in 43 Am. J. Int' 1. L. 589

(1949)). It is also well-settled that international organizations (M.S.T. of A. / Court of Equity and Truth / AAMARU)17

and individuals (Affiant / Affiant's Mother) are endowed with international legal personality to act and assert claims

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan's decision in 2009 not to rely on the Department of Justice, but instead to appoint a special counsel to

investigate and possibly prosecute high ranking Department of Justice lawyers for contempt (in connection with suppression of

evidence) in the Stevens case, suggests that there is no expectation of, nor any confidence in, an efficient or effective

investigation and prosecution by the United States, its officers, agents, or employees. See United States v. Jones, 620 F.Supp. 2d

163, at 176-178 (D.Mass. May 18, 2009). *Ironically, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan is a party in this present matter (see Compulsory

Counterclaim, D.D.C. 1:15-cv-00662-EGS).

See generally, United States v. Jones, 620 F.Supp. 2d 163 (D.Mass. May 18, 2009), chronicling the Department of Justice's and

United States Attorneys Office's (i) well-known dismal history of systemic suppression of exculpatory evidence; (ii) failure to

properly superintend, educate, and train officers, agents, and employees, and (iii) inefficient and ineffective investigation and

sanctioning of misconduct.

There is a long history of nonsovereign organizations performing acts in international law and thus implicitly being recognized as

having international personality. See 1 O'Connell, International Law 105-06 (1965). The de facto acquisition of international

capacity by nonsovereign organizations has resulted in widespread acknowledgement of the extension of international legal

personality to such entities. See P. Jessup, A Modern Law of Nations 8-9, 15-19 (1948).

of human rights abuses and Genocide in violation of the international standard of justice even against their own state.

See W. Friedman, 0. Lissitzyn & R. Pugh, International Law Cases and Materials 154, at 201 (1969). See Leech,

Oliver, & Sweeny, The International Legal System 768, at 629 (1973). Furthermore, no consent is required for an ICJ

Advisory Opinion. See The Western Sahara Opinion (1974-1975) [1975] I.C.J. Rep. 6.

Regarding the international standard of justice as applicable to aliens (Affiant and Affiant's Mother), former U.S.

Secretary of State Mr. Elihu Root." states:

"There is a standard of justice, very fundamental, and of such general acceptance by all civilized countries as

to form a part of the international law of the world. If a country's system of law and administration does not

conform to that standard, although the people of the country may be content or compelled to live under it,

no other country can be compelled to accept it as furnishing a satisfactory measure of treatment to its

citizens... The (alien) is entitled to have the protection and redress which the citizen is entitled to have, and

the fact that the citizen may not have insisted upon his rights, and may be content with lax administration

which fails to secure them to him, furnishes no reason why the (alien) should not insist upon them and no

excuse for denying them to him."

Affiant and Affiant's Mother are lawful non-immigrant aliens within the meaning of Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60

U.S. 393-633 (1857) , see NOTICE (on Page iv of this document), with documented evidence of the manifested

intention of our status as American Moor Nationals of the Asiatic Nation of North America Moorish Science Temple

of America / Court of Equity and Truth. JUDICIAL NOTICE - Visa / Passport Moorish Science Temple of America

See Proceedings of the American Society of International Law 20-22 (1910).

Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393-633 (1857) holds that (A) the word "citizen" in the Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 2) does not embrace

one of the negro race; (B) negro cannot become a citizen; (C) Constitution of the United States recognizes but two kinds of free

persons — citizens and aliens; (D) citizens are natives or naturalized. All persons born in the United States are not citizens, the

exceptions are: (i) children of foreign ambassadors, (ii) Indians (American Moors), and (iii) in general, persons of color (Negroes,

Blacks, African-Americans) — Aliens.

JUDICIAL NOTICE (Fed. R. Evid.201): see Fourth Judicial Circuit Duval County Florida Probate (Registrar) Court TAQUAN RASHIE

GULLETT ESTATE NOTICE OF TRUST # 16-2017-CP-001286, OR BK 18009 Page 978; TAQUAN RASHIE GULLETT ESTATE CAVEAT # 162017-CP-001025, OR BK 17971 Page 674; TAQUAN RASHIE GULLETT ESTATE Personal Replevin Claim # 16-2017-CA-002142, OR BK

17940 Page 1662;

JUDICIAL NOTICE (Fed. R. Evid. 201): see Fourth Judicial Circuit Duval County Florida Probate (Registrar) Court SYTERIA LAWRENCE

ESTATE NOTICE OF TRUST # 16-2017-CP-001287, OR BK 18009 Page 922; SYTERIA LAWRENCE ESTATE CAVEAT # 16-2027-CP-001020,

OR BK 17971 Page 808; SYTERIA LAWRENCE ESTATE Personal Replevin Claim # 16-2017-CA-002144, OR BK 17940 Page 1509.

JUDICIAL NOTICE (Fed. R. Evid. 201): see United States v. Gullett-El, Taquan Rashe, C.D.Cal. 2:14-cr-00725-CAS, Document 117, filed

July 5, 2016 — Silver Surety Bond with Collateral, Act of Expatriation and Oath of Allegiance & Memorandum of Law;

JUDICIAL NOTICE (Fed. R. Evid. 201): see United States v. Syteria Hephzibah, M.D.FIa. 3:15-cr-00016-MMH (filed on or about July 2016)

— Silver Bond with Collateral, Act of Expatriation and Oath of Allegiance & Memorandum of Law.

/ Court of Equity and Truth. JUDICIAL NOTICE — AAMARU Affidavit of Alien Religious Consul Association21.

29. Conduct injuring an alien is attributable to a state and wrongful under international law if it:

Departs from the international standard of justice or constitutes a violation of an international agreement (see

EXHIBIT B & C — Genocide Convention; see Treaty of Peace and Friendship (1787)); or

Departs from (i) the applicable principles of international law as established by international custom, judicial

and arbitral decisions (see EXHIBIT A), and other recognized sources or, in the absence of such applicable

principles, (ii) analogous principles of justice generally recognized by states that have reasonably developed

legal systems. See Restatement, Second, Foreign Relations Law of the United States, § 165 (1965).

30. "It is believed to be a sound principle that, when misconduct on the part of persons concerned with the discharge

of government functions, whatever their precise status may be under domestic law, results in a failure of a nation to

live up to its obligations under international law, the delinquency on the part of such persons is a misfortune for which

the nation must bear responsibility... Under international law a nation has responsibility for the conduct of judicial

officers22*... Gross mistreatment of an alien23 in connection with arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment is not

tolerated, and has been condemned by international tribunals... For this tragic violation of personal rights, it is proper

to award an indemnity in favor of the claimant." See William T. Way Claim (United States v. Mexico), United States

See Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1872) — Rights of Religious Corporation (M.S.T. of A. / Court of Equity and Truth / AAMARU)

Expressed by Trust Conveyance — individuals may dedicate property by way of trust to the purpose of sustaining and propagating

definite religious doctrines, and by operation of the law of trusts, it is the duty of the court to see that property so dedicated and

conveyed is not diverted from such trust.

JUDICIAL NOTICE (Fed. R. Evid. 201): See FINAL CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICITY: Visa / Passport Asiatic Nation of North America Moorish

Science Temple of America / Court of Equity and Truth (10105905 Tax Immunity Number), filed in Bankr.M.D.FIa. 3:20-bk-00618-JAF

on Nov. 2 & 16, 2020, and filed in Bankr.N.D.FIa. 21-00401-KKS (Doc. 4-16) on Jan. 29, 2021.

JUDICIAL NOTICE (Fed. R. Evid. 201): see AAMARU Affidavit of Alien Religious Consul Association, filed in S.Ct. # 18-9138 [M.D.FIa.

3:17-cv-881-TJC-JBT] on Aug. 1, 2017, Doc. 1-3, Pgs. 78-80; also filed in Bankr.N.D.FIa. 20-40375-KKS on Oct. 14, 2020, Doc. 1-8, Pgs.

78-80.

See Restatement, Second, Foreign Relations Law of the United States, § 169 (1965) — General Rules as to Attribution of conduct of

any organ or other agency of a state, or of any official, employee, or other individual agent of the state or of such agency, that causes

injury to an alien, is attributable to the state... if it is within the actual or apparent authority, or within the scope of the function, of

such agency or individual agent.

* see, e.g. Supreme Court Rule 45.1— All process of this Court issues in the name of the President of the United States.

Restatement, (supra) § 171, defines alien as follows: a person is an alien for the purposes of the responsibility of a state for injury

to an alien, if (A) he is not a national of the respondent state; (B) he is a national of the respondent state and of the other state; or

(C) he is a national of the respondent state and of another state, provided (i) his dominant nationality, by reason of residence or other

association subject to his control (or the control of a member of his family whose nationality determines his nationality) is that of the

other state and (ii) he (or such member of his family) has manifested an intention to be a national of the other state and has taken all

reasonable practical steps to avoid or terminate his status as a national of the respondent state.

and Mexico General Claims Commission, [1928-29] Opinion of Commissioners 94, 4 U.N.R.I.A.A. 391. In the

William E. Chapman Claim24 the Commission held that a government is required to take appropriate steps to prevent

injuries to aliens and to employ prompt and effective measures to apprehend and punish offenders who have committed

such injuries.

31. In the Laura B. Janes Claim25 the Commission asserted:

"At times international awards have held that, if a State shows serious lack of diligence in apprehending and

punishing culprits, its liability is a derivative liability, assuming the character of some kind of complicity

with the perpetrator himself and rendering the State responsible for the very consequences of the

individuals' (felony(ies)).... The reason is that the non-punishment must be deemed to disclose some kind

of approval of what has occurred, especially so if the Government has permitted the guilty parties to escape

or has remitted the punishment by granting either pardon or amnesty."

"A reasoning based on presumed complicity may have some foundation in cases of nonprevention where a

Government knows of an intended injurious crime, might have averted it, but for some reason constituting

its liability did not do so... The Government is liable for not having measured up to its duty of diligently

prosecuting and properly punishing the offender."

Finally, international law defines "denial of justice" as (i) any treatment of an alien that violates international law;

(ii) any treatment of an alien that departs from generally accepted standards of substantive law; (iii) treatment of an

alien that departs from generally accepted standards for the conduct of legal proceedings; (iv) failure to afford an alien

an adequate remedy or protection in the administration of justice; (v) failure to prosecute the perpetrator of a crime

causing injury to an alien; or (vi) failure to provide an adequate domestic remedy for an injury to an alien for which

the state has international responsibility (i.e. exhaustion of all local / domestic remedies ). See Restatement, Second,

Foreign Relations Law of the United States, §§ 165-193. All six of the definitions of "denial of justice" are present in

S.Ct. # 21-7141 and all of the directly related actions.

Conclusion

In an exercise of the realization of the Natural Rights and Human Rights enumerated and guaranteed in the United

Nations Charter (1945) and all annexes thereto27, and Treaty of Peace and Friendship (1787) and all annexes thereto28,

Affiant respectfully invites and urges the exercise of the supervisory power of the Supreme Court, United Nations

See William E. Chapman Claim (United States v. Mexico), United States and Mexico General Claims Commission, [1930-31] Opinions

of Commissioners 121, 4 U.N.R.I.A.A. 632.

See Laura B. Janes Claim (United States v. Mexico), United States and Mexico General Claims Commission, 1926, [1927] Opinions

of Commissioners 108, 4 U.N.R.I.A.A. 82.

26 Affiant and Affiant's Son have exhausted of all local / domestic remedies, see EXHIBIT A, Pg. 1. This matter and all of the directly

related actions are ripe for Supreme Court, UN, ICJ, and ICC review.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948); United Nations Declaration of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples

(1960); United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous (Autochthonous) Peoples (2007).

Madrid Convention for Protection in Morocco (1880)

Security Council (UN), International Court of Justice (ICJ), and International Criminal Court (ICC), by the

appointment of disinterested counsel for Special Investigation and Public Prosecution of an Ex Rel. Action /

Humanitarian Intervention29 by: (i) Original Action / Amicus Curiae in the Supreme Court of the United States;

(ii) Original Action / Advisory Opinion in the International Court of Justice; and/or (iii) Original Action / Advisory

Opinion in the International Criminal Court; for such equitable relief as to insure the minimum corrective measures

necessary, access to adequate redress, and effective remedies for all infringements, for the honorable resolution of this

matter and the entirety of the directly related actions.

In the interest of justice, Affiant respectfully invites and urges the Supreme Court, UN, ICJ, and ICC, to appoint

disinterested counsel for Special Investigation and Public Prosecution of this Ex Rel. Action / Humanitarian

Intervention, as was done in the case of United States Senator Ted Stevens. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a)(2). See In re

Special Proceedings, 373 F.3d 37, at 41-44 (1' Cir. 2004). See United States v. Stevens, Cr. No. 08-231 (E.G.S.)30*

(D.D.C. Apr. 7, 2009) (Order) (Docket No. 375).

Affiant respectfully invites and urges the Court to grant a rehearing tightly and squarely focused on the distinctions

presented in this Affidavit for Rehearing, and on further consideration, grant all of the relief sought in S.Ct. # 21-7140

Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Affiant respectfully invites and urges the Court to vacate the void "official Federal

policy" of retaliation and Genocide / proof of conspiracy (unlawful Procup injunction) of S.Ct. No 18-9138 and remand

M.D.Fla. 3:17-cv-00881-TJC, M.D.Fla. 3:17-cv-00472-TJC and M.D.Fla. 3:17-cv-00440-TJC. See Procup v.

Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069 (1

Cir. 1986) (en banc) — We hold that the district court's injunction was overbroad.

Affiant respectfully invites all such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, in accord with

Natural Equity, to dispose of this matter and the entirety of the directly related actions, as law and justice require.

In Honor

Ameen

JUDICIAL NOTICE: Affidavit of Information, Report, and Preferral of Charges, 4th Jud. Cir. Duval Co. Fl. 16-2017-CA-004274 (Doc. 4)

Pgs. 47-69; Charges, Specifications, Elements, Invoice, Pgs. 70-417, and True Bills, Pgs. 84-91 (PDF) (or Pgs. 75-82 bottom-ofDocument pagination).

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan's decision in 2009 not to rely on the Department of Justice, but instead to appoint a special counsel to

investigate and possibly prosecute high ranking Department of Justice lawyers for contempt (in connection with suppression of

evidence) in the Stevens case, suggests that there is no expectation of, nor any confidence in, an efficient or effective

investigation and prosecution by the United States, its officers, agents, or employees. See United States v. Jones, 620 F.Supp. 2d

163, at 176-178 (D.Mass. May 18, 2009). *Ironically, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan is a party in this present matter (see Compulsory

Counterclaim, D.D.C. 1:15-cv-00662-EGS).

See generally, United States v. Jones, 620 F.Supp. 2d 163 (D.Mass. May 18, 2009), chronicling the Department of Justice's and

United States Attorneys Office's (i) well-known dismal history of systemic suppression of exculpatory evidence; (ii) failure to

properly superintend, educate, and train officers, agents, and employees, and (iii) inefficient and ineffective investigation and

sanctioning of misconduct.

Certificate of Good Faith

I, Taquan Gullett, certify that this Affidavit for Rehearing is presented in good faith and not for delay, that this Affidavit

for Rehearing is a matter of fundamental fairness and would not unduly burden the Court, and that it is restricted to

the grounds specified in Supreme Court Rule 44.

v-ratz-rcS\S VA‘Nz3N t 60 'est.rj slcAsti c-e_stu-NA:3 0,4 kJ' ' MarNCouC or. a (,,t,Lic- c4.5

\ -3 b

Maalik Ta uan Rahshe Gullett El d/b/a Moorish Science Temple of America / Court of Equity and Truth

10105905 (Tax Immunity Number for the Asiatic Nation of North America)

General Executor-Caveator for AAMARU Religious Consul Association Testamentary Trust

Certificate of Compliance with Page Limits

As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.2(b), I certify that the document contains fifteen (15) pages, excluding the parts

that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).

siciN

cNk14,

----cOke

,'N\4•10

cZa\f•i\NIN)

"AC "Ur Nt3„1 0,4 t.TL ft--S45-\trgDr

\kkur\At‘o\Ntsj

4 t'VC b

\i‘

1C\oo-, 4.3t:4"^(ti

CLV9)

Maalik Ta uan Rahshe Gullett El d/b/a Moorish Science Temple of America / Court of Equity and Truth

10105905 (Tax Immunity Number for the Asiatic Nation of North America)

General Executor-Caveator for AAMARU Religious Consul Association Testamentary Trust

*Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201 and Fla. Stat. § 90.201, the Court takes judicial notice of relevant

public records; of undisputed matters of public record; of filings in another proceeding. **See

Spirit of Mandela International Tribunal** (www.spiritofmandela.org) and United Nations

International Tribunal 2021** (www.tribunal2o21.com) — International Tribunal Renders

Verdict Finding United States Guilty of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. The

International Tribunal on Human Rights Abuses Against Black, Brown and Indigenous Peoples

was held Oct. 23-25, 2021. The jurists unanimously found the United States guilty of

the following five counts (which attorney Nkechi Taifa explained fit well within the

internationally-accepted definition of genocide): (I) Police violence and killings; (II)

Mass incarceration; (III) Political Prisoners and Prisoners of War; (IV)

Environmental racism; (V) Public health inequities. The verdict was read aloud before

the United Nations. Signed, October 25, 2021, Panel of Jurists, Church Center of the

United Nations.

Commercial Verification

I, Taquan Gullett, also called Maalik Rahshe El d/b/a Moorish Science Temple of America / Court of Equity and Truth

(10105905 Tax Immunity Number for the Asiatic Nation of North America (see C.D.Cal. 2:21-cv-05720-JAK-JDE,

Doc. 5, EXHIBIT A)), On Behalf of Himself: General Executor-Caveator for Autochthonous American Moor Alien

(Friend) Republican Universal Government [AAMARU] Religious Consul Association Testamentary Trust — Divine

Immortal Spirit in Living Flesh and Blood Competent Natural Man of majority by firm sound mind and righteous upright

moral integrity, In Propria Persona proceeding in Sui Juris capacity, Settlor / Beneficiary / Paramount Security Interest

Holder (Authenticated Birth Certificate; Registered Copyright /Trademark — USPO No. RE 246 590 423 US; Registered

Fictitious Business Name — Florida Department of State No. G15000018576 (see C.D.Cal. 2:21-cv-05720-JAK-JDE, Doc.

5, EXHIBIT B); Maritime Lien No. RE 246 590 573 US — Putnam County Florida. Inst. No. 20105471421; California

UCC #'s 10-7225252349, 10-7253610631, 14-7415317710, Kentucky UCC # 2014-2695084-41.01) over DEBTOR /

INDIVIDUAL "GULLETT-EL, TAQUAN RASHE" (any and all alphabetical and/or numerical variations and/or

derivations); do hereby declare and affirm under penalty of perjury under the Universal Law of Allah The Exalted and

Majestic, then under the laws of the United States, that the foregoing is true, correct, certain, complete to the best of my

own first-hand personal knowledge, not misleading, admissible as evidence, and in accord with the righteous upright moral

integrity of my honorable intent, and if called upon to offer testimony as to the veracity of the evidence herein proffered

and preferred, I shall so state. 28 U.S.C. § 1746. Fed. R. Evid. 201, 301, 902(10). Title 3 Cal.Civ.P. § 2015.5. Cal. Evid.

Code §§ 450 et seq. Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1400 et seq. Fla. Stat. §§ 92.525, 90.301, 90.902.

This affidavit is dated on or about the l'‘).)

S V\PA, o1/4.c

h-) day of

in the

Year of Al-Fattah, Al-Mannan, Al-Muti, As-Shaafi, Ar-Rafeeq, As-Sabur,

Allah The Exalted and Majestic

Fourteen Hundred Forty Three (

)

[Gregorian Calendar Year (G.C.Y.) 2022 — March,W) ]

Witness My Hand and Seal:

vvAstr 02-5-tn,t;

vcAor- ct-V

cN41

\47-

mu4 t"

LATA\A&Chaln ikTa:WeCC\QICr\ 19.MAr\

GA Okif CIO S

\)(C. \ ISO g

Maalik Taquan Rahshe Gullett El d/b/a Moorish Science Temple of America / Court of Equity and Truth

10105905 (Tax Immunity Number for the Asiatic Nation of North America)

General Executor-Caveator for AAMARU Religious Consul Association Testamentary Trust

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.