Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Javaris Marquez Tubbs, Petitioner v. United States

Supreme Court briefJul 5, 2024

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

84 - 507SO)

No.'

FILED

JUL 0 5 20»

teigco^SLs

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Sulieman Bey ex rel

JAVARIS MARQUEZ TUBBS

— PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA "et all RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO-

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASIE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Sulieman Bey ex rel JAVARIS MARQUEZ TUBBS

(Your Name)

FCI TALLADEGA, PMB 1000

(Address)

TALLADEGA. ALABAMA

(City, State, Zip Code)

N/A

(Phone Number)

■>

GUESTiON(S) PRESENTED

1. V as the sentence imposed in violation of the constitution or

laws of the United States?

2. Is the U.S. District Cc-urt for the Western District of

Louisiana, Monroe Division,- ordained and established by ar. Act of

Congress at Article III to act judicially?

3. Is the U.S. District Court of Western Louisiana, Konroe

Division, a "District Court of the United States”?

4. lid the U.S. District Court have jurisdiction to impose such

sentence?

5. Did the U.S. District lack subject, matter jurisdiction?

6. Did the U.S. District Court lack In Personam jurisdiction?

7. Did the U.S. District Court lack Territorial jurisdiction?

8. Was affiant arbitrarily deprived cf right to a name and

nationality under ‘color1 of law?

Is the United States of America's.: claim of personam

jurisdiction of affiant via 'state birth certificate', proof of

'Denationalization', 'crimes against humanity', 'Genocide'?

10. Is the Moorish Divine and National movement of the worlds legal

notice

judicial notice;

name

declaration;

proclamation;

correction; Nunc Pro: Tunc to affiants right to a name and a

nationality; cultural; political 'status' of choice?

11. Did the plaintiff and the district court judge conspire against

affiants rights by claiming jurisdiction (U.S. Citizenry) via

'birth certificate?

12. Did the plaintiff and the district court judge deprive affiant

of rights under 'color' of law?

13. Was there a 'conflict of identity' ., and of nationality on the

part of the plaintiff' and the judge?

14. Can affiant be compelled to associate?

15. Does affiant as a 'Natural Person' have the right to self

autonomy, self goverance, and to determine his own 'political

status" of the "state"?

16. Are the right to travel, the right to mode of conveyance , the

righi: to locomotion, the. right to free movement, all abs olute

rights?

QUESTiON(S) PRESENTED

17. ts the 'Birth Certificate' a state deed of ownership?

18. Are the judges, senators, representatives, and members of the

several state legislators, all executive, and judicial officers

both of the united states and several states, bound by Oath or

Affirmation to Article VI of the U.S, Republic Constitution?

19. Is the (Treaty of Marrakech), the Treaty of peace and

friendship between Morocco and the United States supreme law of

the Land?

20. Are treaties, including United Ration Charters, 'Suprem e Law

of tine Land?

21. Is 'black* a "color or race"?

22. Ts 'black' a nationality or a political slave label?

23. Are the labels negro, black, colored, african-american, etc. ,

an art of 'denationalization' or 'genocide'?

24. Does the birth certificate confer jurisdiction to the state?

25. Do all individuals have the right to a name and nationslity?

26. !)oes 'status' determine jurisdiction?

27. Is the Moorish Divine and National Movement, legal / judicial

notice; name declarations correction; proclamation and publicstion;

a name change or a status correction?

28. Is Article I of the U.S. Republic Constitution, 3/5 of all

other 'persons' clause retroactively applied ex post facto, to the

all 'persons' born 14th amendment 'citizen'?

29. Does the 14th amendment to the U.S. constitution, 'all persons

born' clause hold Moorish Nationals hostage under ex post facto

slavij labels e.g. negro, black, colored, african-american, etc?

30. Is the 14th amendment to the U.S. constitution ex post facto

to the 13th amendment, reinstituting slavery via the black code

laws?

31. las Dx~ed Scott v. Sandford 15 L.Ed. 691, 19 How 393, ever been

overturned?

32. Are negroes, blacks, coloreds, african-americans,

citizens1

according t:o the U.S. Republic constitution, and meaning and intent

of framing founding fathers?

-» 7

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

33. Does the birth certificate declare negroes, blacks, coloreds,

african-americans, as 'property' (subjects), via the state wherein

they reside? Is the 'state seal' on the birth certificate proof

of claim?

34. ilow is it a negro, black, colored, african-american, cm be

made a 'citizen'?

35„ Is U.S, citizenry f«5x?rartificial, corporate persons?

36. Is the United States a Federal Corporation?

37. low can the. word 'black* find no formal place within the

nationalities of the human family, and still can be made a

'citizen' of any free national constitutional government?

38. Axe blacks "slaves" or "persons", as used in the 14th

amendment, and how can they he made first-class citizens without

their inalienable free national descent name of their forefathers?

39. is the unlawful taking and carrying away of a human huing by

force, fraud, threats,, or intimidat-ioi) and against his* will, a act

of kidnapping?

40. ts the Moorish American National 'political status' "state"

a diversity cf citizenship issue?

41. khich branch of law authorized the states to apply aboli shed

slave labels, [negro, black., colored, african-american], to any

person of african descent, after 1865?

42. r oes this act reinstate such persons as chattel-proper ty, and

reopens the institution of slavery under colorable constil uti.onal

amendments?

43. Does this case arising under the constitution of the United

States and Treaties, involve "federal question" jurisdiction?

44. Did the United States of ■America deny affiant of procedural

and

substantive

rights

life,

liberty(freedom),and

property(inalienable rights), without due process of law?

45. ('an a judge deny a jurisdictional claim without the plaintiff

/ accuser first bearing the burden of proof?

46. Can jurisdiction he established by consent, stipulation,

agreement of parties, or waiver?

47< Can a jurisdictional claim be procedural!y defaulted?

* * .

QUESTSON(S) PRESENTED

48. toes a defendant need to show cause and prejudice to justify

his failure to raise a jurisdictional, claim?

49. Ioes a natural person / human being have a right to freedon

of expression / association or disassooiation?

50. t o natural persons / human beings have the right to self goverance

/ self autonomy?

51. Does the sentence imposed violate Tapia v. United States,[740

F.3d 370] 131 S.Ct. at 2391, and the sentencing reform act?

52. Ian a supervised release sentence be Imposed / increased to

prison, to promote rehabilitation / treatment?

53. Can above the sentencing guideline sentence be imposed to

promote rehabilitation / treatment in a supervised release

revoc ation hearing?

54. For a crime to exist, does there have to be an injurel ;?arty

(corpus delicti)?

55. Just a case be dismissed, if the tribunal (court) finds absence

of. proof of jurisdiction over person or subject matter, oc where

due process was denied?

5o. Is it a crime for a judge to practice law from the bench?

57. js Moor American a *state*?

58. is the United States of America,

(u.S.A.)

jurisdiction to Moors?

59. 'ts the word 'person' a corporation, unless it says

person'?

foreign

'natural

60.1s it 'fraud' to impose the 14th amendment on the people?

61. Are u.S. citizens property and franchises of the federal

government?

62. Ls the ability to regulate the people unconstitutioral and

* .r,-i

repugnant to the constitution?

63. Are (Birth) Rignts personal property?

64. Are the rights of the people derived from governmental

agenc res, either municipal, state, or federal, or even from the

const itution?

65. D oes the term "person" include the soveriegn?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

66. Must a court have jurisdiction over the human being, alLegea

crime: , and land, prior to tne court exercising judicial p ewer?

67. n o statutes have jurisdiction over the people?

68. Dnce jurisdiction is challenged, must it be proven ta sxist

oy written documentation?

69. ]s it fraud by an Article III judge, that sits m a muni cipal

-1

•

court, to administer judicial power?

70. Can a magistrate, administrative officer of the ex ecitive

branch sit in a judicial capacity?

71. toes the office of the prosecutor rest in the executive br men?

72. :c£ the prosecutor is an attorney, officer of the court , vhich

is p art of the judicial branch, is this a 'conflict of int er 2st' ?

73. Must a complaint Identify at least one plaintiff by tru e lame,

for £ action to commence?

74. Is the united states an entity?

75- Can tne united States write a complaint?

76. Are all actions carried on by a governmental agency ca tried

out by its agents and actors?

77. Is violating one's oath (or Affirmation) 'perjury*?

78. Are judgements from courts with no jurisdiction nullities?

79. /Its

the

united States district court of Western Louisiana,

Monroe division, a territorial / legislative court?

80. Does tne government, state or federal have jurisdiction over

a human being?

•

81. Can an inanimate object press

object?

82. /xe governments corporations?

charges

against

animate

83. vho do statues apply to?

84. Does tne l4th amendment apply negatively to a class of people,

and contradict the united States Repunlic Constitution wliicn is

not Written for a specific class of people, it is written for

everyone?

85. Do codes,

including united States Codes,

Ordinances regulate government employees only?

Statute s.

and

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

bring in a living, breathing

person and have

Can a court

juris diction over them?

87. does the law say that if you do not declare that you ar e a non

86.

corporate entity, you are a corporation?

88. is it 'fraud' because the court failed to tell us they had no

jurisdiction?

u.S.

89. Are all courts (including those in Washington D.C.

District Courts (federal courts) and circuit courts, FOREIGN STATES

to Mcors?

90. Can the judge obtain jurisdiction by simply saying he has

jurisdiction?

91. Hay the plaintiff

(accuser)

stipulate that the cov.rt has

jurisdiction?

92. Must the plaintiff provide written proof of jurisdiction, and

must file that written proof into the case?

93. Way jurisdiction he challenged at anytime?

94. when the plaintiff fails to

provide jurisdiction, is any

sentence or finding of the court void?

95. Cs it 'fraud' from the inception, because the court already

Knew T was not a corporation and they Knew they did not / do not

have jurisdiction over the body?

96. Are declared Moors (declarednationality) protected under

International Law?

97. Ilid congress replace statutes with international law, placing

all states under International law?

98. Did ttie International Organization Immunities Act relinquish

every public office of the united States to the united Natrons?

99. Is citizenship relinquished once an "Oath of Office” is taken.

thus becoming a foreign entity, agency, or state, meanind dvery

public office is a foreign state, including all political

subdivisions, (l.e. every single court is considered a separate

foreign entity)?

100. Can a foreign entity. agency. or state bring any suit against

"The People" according to Article xl of the Bill of Rights?

GUESTION(S) PRESENTED

101. Can the judge deny a section 2255 motion challenging subject

matter jurisdiction without the plaintiff l accuser) bearing the

burden of proof of its existence?

102. Can the appellate court deny a certificate of appealability

for not paying a filing fee, when the petitioner has already been

granted prior approval to proceed in forma pauperis, by the

district court, in the prior proceeding?

103. Ts negro, black, colored, a 'suspect classification'?

104. Is negro, black, colored, a "protected person'?

105. Ts jurisdiction once challenged to be proven by the asserter

or the court?

'.f'v.

LIST OF PARTIES

[ ] idl parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

IX] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of

all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this

petition is as follows:

Uni. ted States of America

Crstina Walker

Terry A. Doughty

Mary J. Mudrick

Casey Stevens

BrL'an:'Christopher'Flanagan

United

States v.

TUBBS,

RELATED CASES

2:05cr0C243, 2:06cr00451, Eastern District OalLfornia.

Judgement entered Mar. 27, 2003.

United States v. TUBBS, 2:05cr0G243, 463 Fed.Appx.706, 2011 U.S. App. LSXIS 25771,

Eastern District California. Judgement entered Dec. 23, 2011

United

States v.

TUBBS,

3:19cr00391,

3:19cr00392,

Western District Louisiana,

Monroe Division. Judgement entered Mar. 1. 2023.

United States v. TUBBS, 3:19cr00391. 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33852, Western District

Louisiana. Monroe Division. Judgement entered Feb. 26, 2024.

United

States v.

TUBBS,

3:19cr00391, 3:19cr00392, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60189,

Western District Louisiana, Monroe Division. Judgement entered Apr. 1, 202n.

United

States v.

TUBBS, No. 24-30155, No. 2430156, 2024 U.S. Dist. IEXJS 10338,

United

States Court of

Appeals Fifth Circuit. Judgement entered Apr. 29, 2024.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OP NIONS BELOW

JURISDICTION

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

REASONS,FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

COMCLUSION

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Decision of the United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

APPENDIX B

Decision of the United States District Court Western District Louisia na, Monroe

Division.

APPENDIX C

Decision of United States Court of Appeals Denying Timely Filed

Petition for

Rehearing.

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

PAGE NUMBER

CASES

Wooley v. Maynard, [430 U.S. 703] (1977)

Abood v, Detroit Board of Education, [431 U.S. 209] (1977)

Sei Fujii v. State (1952) 38 Cal.2d 718, 242 P2d 617

Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P.27

City Street Improvement Co. v. Pearson,, 181 C.640 185 P.962

Lowe v. Alexander, 15 C.296, People v. Board of Delegates of San

Francisco Fire Dept., 14 C.479

Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533

In Re Marriage of Hampshire, 261

Gray v. Internal Affairs Bureau, 292 F.Supp.2d 475 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

Eagerton v. Valuations, Inc » 5 698 F.2d 1115, 35 Fed.R.Serv.2d

(callaghan) 1546 (1.1th Cir.1983)

Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F.2d 739

STATUTES AND RULES

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3)

18 DSC § 241

18 HSC §242

8 USC, Chapter 12, § 1101(a)(42)

18'. use,. Chp.12, §207(e)

18 DSC §4001(a)

18 DSC § 241 & 242

28 USC, Chp.176, Section 3002(15 A).

18 USC §§ 241-242

22 CFR 92.12 - 92.31 FR Heading "Foreign Relationship"

8 DSC §1481.

22 DSC, Chp.ll. (Foreign Relations and Intercourse)

28 USC, Chp.176, §3002(15 A).

OTHER

Article 20, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 3 and Article 4, United Nations rights of Indigenous Peoples

Article 15, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Principle 3, Declaration of the Rights of the Child

Article 6, United Nations Rights of Indigenous Peoples

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

PAGE NUMBER

CASES

Eberhart v. Integrated Design & Constr., Inc-, 167 F.3d 861,

871 (4th Cir.1999)

Schwartz v. United States, 976 F.2d 213, 2.17 (4th Cir.1992)

Eckel v. MacNeal, 628 N.E.2d 741 (lll.App.Dist.1993)

Girardi v. Heep, 203 F.3d 820 (4th Cir. 12/30/1999)

Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)

Jaffe and Asher v„ Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y, 1994,, 158 F.R.D,

United States v. Oregon, 366 U.S, 634, 649, 6 L„EP,2d 575, 81 S.Ct.

1278 (1961)

Case v. Bowles, 327 U.S. 92, 102,. 90 L.Ed, 552, 66 S.Ct. 438 (1946)

Oklahoma ex rel Phillips v. Guy F, Atkinson Co., 313 U.S, 508, 534,

85 L.Ed. 1487, 61 S.Ct, 1050 (1941)

STATUTES AND RULES

Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(j)

22 CFR 93.1 - 93.2

28 USC §1330

28 USC §1608

28 USC §1602 - 1611 (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act)

15 Statutes at Large, Chp.249, §1 "Acts Concerning American

Citizens in a Foreign State".

Coram Non Judice

28 USC, Chp.176, §3002(15 A).

18 USC §§ 241-242

8 USC §1481

40 USC §255

40 USC §3112

OTHER

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

PAGE NUMBER

CASES

United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124, 85 L.Ed. 609,

61 S.Ct. 451, 132 ARL 1430 (1941)

U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 448-49, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 14 L.Ed.

484, 492

U.S. v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 315, 66 S.Ct. 1073, 1079, 90 L.Ed.

1252

Holzer v. Deutsche Reichsbahn Gesellschaft, Misc. 830, 290 N.Y.S.

181, 191.

Civil right cases, 109 U.S. 3, 3 S.Ct. 18, 27 L.Ed. 835

Roe v. New York (1970, SDNY) 49 FRD 279, 14 FR Serv 2d 437,

8 ALR Fed 670.

Frace v. Tjong Beach City high School Dist. (1943), 137 P.2d 60,58.

(98 U.S. 145)

STATUTES AND RULES

18 & 28 USC

18 USC §§659, 660, 842, 844, 875, 922, 1231, 1301, 1343, 1365,

1951, 1953, 1962, 1992, 2101, 2251, 2312, 2314, 2316, 2317, 2421,

2422, 2423.

44 USC §552 et seq.

44 USC §1505 et seq.

44 USC §1505(a)(l)

28 USC §535.

1 CFR 601-701(ii)

1 CFR 1.

1 USC §204(a)

Txtle^-18 & 28v,U5GC

Title 18 & 28, USC

OTHER

22 Corpus Juris Secundum, Crim, see 17.

Fed.Reg.Act 1 Seq., 44 USCA 301 et seq.

Fed.Reg.Act, 82 Stat. 1274

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

PAGE NUMBER

Maine v, Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1

Mookini v. D.S c I 303 U.S. 201 (1938)

Hfc \K,$. »¥£

McNutt v. General Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936).

Maxfield v. Levy, 4 U.S. 330 (1797), 4 U.S. 330 (Dali.) 381,

1 L„Ed. 424.

Hagans v. Lavine. 415 U.S. 533.

Louisville Rail Road v. Motley, 211 U.S. 149, 29 S.Ct. 42.

Cirt Street Improvement Co. v. Pearson, 181 C.640, 185 P.962.

Lowe v. Alexander, 15 C.296, People v. Board pf Delegates of San

Francisco Fire Dept., 14 C.479.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators (3 U.S. 45, 1 L.Ed. 57,

3 Dali. 54.

Western Turf Assn, v. Greenberg,. 204 U.S. 359.

STATUTES AND RULES

44 USC §1505(a)

Fed.R Crim.P. Rule 54(2).

18 USC §3238.

18 USC §§3551,3553. thru 3559)

Fed.R.Crim.P. Rule 54(d)

18 USC §3553

Fed.R.Crim.P. Rule 54(c)

18 USC §4001(a)

18 USC §3553(a)(2)

18 USC §3553

18 USCS §3582(a)

18 USCS §3583(e)

18 USC §3582(a)

OTHER

(Lex Loci), of the "Law of the Place".

Orfield; Criminal Procedure from Arrest to Appeal, 243.

942 C.J.S. "Indictments and Informations", (1 P.883).

22 Corpus Secundum, "Criminal Law', 324, P.390.

Res Judicata

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

2032 U.S. 243

PAGE NUMBER

Middleton v. Low, 30 C596, citing Prosser v. Secor, 5 Barb,

(N.Y„) 607, 608.

Loos v, American Energy Savers, Inc,, 168 Ill.App.3d 558, 522

N.E„2d 841 (1988).

Paulsen v. Paulsen, 658 N,U.2d 49, Neb.App., 2003.

Maine v, Thiboutot, 100 S.Ct. 250.

Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F.2d 906, 910.

U.S. v. Benson, 495 F.2d 481 (1946),

Adams v. United States. 319 U.S. 312, 63 S.Ct. 1122, 87 L.Ed. 1421

(1943).

STATUTES AND RULES

18 USC §3582(a)

Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 8(b)(1)

Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(a)

Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b)(6)

Fed,R.Civ.P. 8(l)(a)(b)

Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b)(2)

28 USC §2255

Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 8

Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1)

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3)

OTHER

Plain Error

(Rec.Doc.51)

(Rec.Doc.53)

(Rec.Doc.48)

(Rec..Doc„51)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

United States v. Johnson, 337 F.2d 180 (affmd) 86 S.Ct. 749,

PAGE NUMBER

(383 U.S. 169) 15 L.Ed. 681 Cert Den. 87 S.Ct. 44, 134 and at 385

U.S. 846, 17 L.Ed.2d 117.

40 U.S.C. 3112

3 Wheat at 350-351

United States v. flores, 289 U,S. 137, 151 (1932).

United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476, 485 (1916)

Donnelley v. United States, 276 U.S. 505-511 (1927)

Jerome v. United States, 318 U.S. 101, 104 (1942)

Norton v. United States, 92 Fed.2d 753 (1927)

United States v. Grossman, 1 Fed.2d 941, 950-51 (1924).

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Company, 259 U.S. 20,

Nigro v. United states, 276 U.S. 332 (1929)

STATUTES AND RULES

18 USC §§ 241-242

28 USC., Chp.176, §3002(15 A)

4 USC, Chp.l

18 USc, Part 1, Chp 13, §§ 241-242

Fed.R.App.P, 24(3) (prior approval)

49 Statute 3097 Treaty Series 881 (Convention on Rights of States)

International Organization Immunities Act

28 USC §1746(1)

26 USC §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10)

26 USC §7710(a)(30)

26 USC §7701(c)

26 CFR §1.1441-1(c)(3)

OTHER

Document #11 pgs. 69-75

Revocation Hearing Transcript, pg.10, lines 9-10; pg,.12, lines 1-8;

Stare Decisis

Revocation Transcript pg.13, lines 21-24

Revocation Transcript pg.13, lines 24-25; pg,14„ lines 1-3;

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

PAGE NUMBER

GASES

Hotch v« United States, 212 F.2d 280 (9th Cir.l954)5 at P.283

A.L.A. Schecter Poultry Corp. v. United states, 295 U.S. 495, 550,

70 L.Ed. 1570, 55 S.Ct. 837, 97 ALR 947 (1935)

Wei v, Robinson, 246 F.2d 739 (7th Cir.1957), Cert. Den. 78 S.Ct.

144, 355 U.S. 879.

Wolfson v. United States, 492 F.2d 1386, 204 S.Ct. 83 (1974).

Shafer v. United States. 229 F.2d 124, Cert. Den. 76 S.Ct. 78,

351 U.S. 931.

Northern States Power Co. v. Rural Electrification Administration,

248 F.Supp. 616 (1965).

United States v. Mersky, 361 U.S. 431, 438 (I960).

United states v. Reinis, 794 F,2d 506 (9th Cir.1986).

United states v. Two hundred Thousand dollar, 590 F.Supp. 846

(S.D, Fla.1984).

STATUTES AND RULES

OTHER

Revocation Transcript pg.7, line 4;

Revocation Transcript pg.3, lines 19-25; pg.4, lines 1-22;

Revocation Transcript pg.7, lines 11-25; pg.9, lines 1-5; pg„13,

lines 8-13;

Document #11, pgs. 69-75, pg ID# 119-125;

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

PAGE NUMBER

United States v. Welden, 377 U.S. 95 (1964).

Stephan v. United States, 319 U.S, 423 (1943).

Best Foods v. United States, 147 F.Supp. 749, 37 Cust.Ct.l (1956).

Pearl v, Motor Vessel Bering Explore 373 F.Supp. 927 (1974).

United states v, Nevers, 7 F.3d 59 (5th Cir.1993).

United States v. Larionoff, 431 U.S. 864, at 973, 97 S.Ct. 2150,

at 2156, 53 L.Ed.2d, 48 at 56. Id, at 873 N.12, 97 S.Ct. at 2156, N.12.

Manhattan Gen. Equip. Co. v. C.I.R., 297 U.S. at 134

Neel v. United States, 266 F.Supp. at 10.

Western Union Teleg. Co. v. F.C.C., 541 F.2d 346, 354 (3rd Cir,1976),

Cert. Den. 429 U.S. 1029 (1977).

Morning v. Family p. Services Inc. 411 U.S. 356, 369 (1973)

United States v. Mersky, Supra.

STATUTES AND RULES

OTHER

Revocation Transcript pg.13, lines 13-18; pg.3,, lines 19-22;

Revocation Transcript pg.7, lines 5-8; pg.3, lines 19-25;

Revocation Transcript pg»3, lines 19-25;

Revocation Transcript pg.4, lines 1-25;

Revocation Transcript pg.3, lines 19-25; pg.4, lines 1-3;

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

United S :ates v. Pupo, 841 F.2d 1235,

PAGE I^IVIBER

United S :ates v. Young, 730 F,2d at 224,

United Spates v, Mcrary, 665 F,2d 664, 678, 679 (5th Cir„1982)«

United s tates v, Stirone, 361 U,S. 212, 4 L.Ed.2d 252, 80 S.Ct. at 273. 21

United States v. Wuco, 535 F.2d 1225 (9th Cir.1976) Cert. Den, 429

U.S. 978, 97 S.Ct, 488, 50 L,Ed.2d 586 (1976).

Hale v. Jnited States, 89 F,2d (4th Cir.)

United States v, Berlin. 472 F.2d 1002, 1007 (2nd cir. 1973).

United States v„ Beard, 414 F.2d 1014, 1017 (3rd Cir.)

United States v. lopez, at 2 F»3d 1342(holding of the Fifth circuit

Court of] Appeals),

Norton v . Shelby Co. Supre, 118 U.S. 425, 441, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1886).

In Re: K cCowan, (1917) 177 C.93, 170 P.1100.

STATUTES AND RULES

OTHER .

Revocation Transcript pgs6, lines 19-21; pg„14, lines 18-20;

Document 11 (docket sheet) pgs. 1-75;

Revocat; on Transcript pg.81, lines 7-20; pg.87, lines 1-13;

Revocation Transcript pg.7, lines 11-24; pg.14, lines 21-25; pg.15,

lines T-9;

TABLE OF AUTHORmES CSTED

CASES

Owen v. Independence, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 445 U.S. 622.

PAGE^UViBER

Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 D.S. 232, 101 S.Ct. 1657.

United States v. Fessler, 781 F.2d 384, 386 (1986).

People v. Godfrey., 17 jobns 225 at 233.

Gray v. Blight, 112 F.2d 696.

Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 115 L,Ed.2d 410, 110 S.Ct.

2395 (1991).

United States v, Oregon, 366 U.S. 643, 649, 6 L.Ed.2d 575, 81 S.Ct.

1278 (19161).

Case v. bowles, 327 U.S. 92, 102, 90 L.Ed. 552, 66 S.Ct, 438 (1946).

Oklahoma ex rel Phillips v, Guy F. Atkinson Co * :» 313 U.S. 508, 534.

85 L.Ed. 1487f, 61 S.Ct. 1050 (1941),

United £ tates v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124, 85 L.Ed. 209, 61 S.Ct.

451, 132 ARL 1430 (1941).

STATUTES1 ANfr RULES

OTHER .

Revocation Transcript pg.7, lines 11-25; pg.8, lines 1-21; pg„14,

lines 18-25; pg.15. lines 1-25; pg«16, lines 1-11;

Nunc Pro Tunc

Docume.nl: 11 pgs. 69-75, page ID# 119-125;

Revocation Transcript pg.9, lines 1-16;

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

United States v. Meehaniks 475 U,S. 66, 70, 106 S.Ct. 938,

PAGE I^J\/iBER

941, 89 ]..Ed.2d 50 (1989).

United States v. Hooker, 841 F.2d 1245.

Arizona v. Ramsey, 467 U.S. 203, 212, 81 L.Ed.,2d 164, 104 S.Ct.

2305 (19£4).

Oregon v , Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 691, 692, N.34, 72 L.Ed.2d 416,

24 f25

102 S.Ct, 2083 (1983).

United States v. Lopez, No.931260 (Decided Apr. 26th 1995).

Bowles 346 F,2d 285, 286 (1965).

Allcock v. Allcock, 437 N.E. 2nd 392 (ill.App. 3 Dist).

Ray Anthony Harris v. United States, 149 F.3d 1304; 1998 U.S. APP.

LEXIS 20715 ; 11 Fla. 1. Weekly Fed. C 1735, (11th Cir.1998)

United States v. Corey P. Wooley, 740 F.,3d 359; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS

1122 (5th Cir.2014)

STATUTES AND RULES

OTHER

Revocation Transcript pg.9, lines 1-16; pg.13, lines 8-20;

Black Code Law

Revocation Transcript pg.14, lines 4-8;

Revocation Transcript pg.32, lines 11-21;

Revocation Transcript pg.62, lines 4-10;

TABLE OF AUTHOR8TIES CITED

CASES

United States v. Clyde Bennett Mills, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

56087 (5l:h Cir.2012).

United States v. Jesus Javier Garza, 706 F.,3d 655; 2013 U.S.

APP. LEXIS 2386 (5th Cir.2013).

United S ;ates v. James Linder, 782 Fed.Appx. 904; 2019 U.S. APP.

PAGE l^y vIBER

LEXIS 23226 (11th Cir.2019).

United States v. Kevin Taylor, 859 Fed.Appx. 520; 2021 U.S. APP.

LEXIS 18)42 (1.1 Cir.2021).

Culbertsan, 712 F.3d at 243.

Escalante-Reyes, 689 F.3d at 423.

United States v. Tatum, 512 F.Appx. 402, 402 (5th Cir.2013),

(applying [740 F.3d 368].

Escalante-Reyes, 689 F»3d at 419, (auoting Puckett, 556 U.S. at

135 (2009).

STATUTES AND RULES

OTHER .

Revocation Transcript pg.13, lines 21-24;

Document 11, pgs. 8-10, pg ID# 58-60; pg.ll, pg ID# 61; pg.14,

pg ID# (4; pgs. 15-16, pg ID# 65-66; pgs,, 24-25, pg ID# 74-75;

pgs.35-40, pg. ID# 85-90; pgs. 42-47, pg. ID# 92-97; pgs. 64-66,

pg. ID# 114-116; pgs. 68-75, pg. ID# 118-125;

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

. CASES

Escalantei-Reyes, 689 F.3d at 425 (quoting United States v.

PAGE i^y^BER

Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)

[2014 U.L, APP. LEXIS 31]

Culbertson, 712 F.3d at 244.

Tapia, [740 F.3d 370] 131 S,Ct. at 2391.

28 29

United States v. Garcia-Quintanilla, 574 F.3d 295, 304 (5th Cir.2009)

Roy Anthony Harris v» United States, 149 F.3d 1304; 1998 U.S. APP.

LEXIS 20715.

United S ;ates v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 226, 229, 82 L.Ed. 764, 58 S.Ct.

601 (1933).

Celotax Oorp. v, Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

Page v. Jright, 116 F.2d 449 (7th Cir.1940), Cert, dismissed, 312

U.S. 710, 61 S.Ct. 831, 85 L.Ed. 1142 (1941).

STATUTES AND RULES

OTHER

Revocation Transcript pg.14, lines 9-17

Revocation Transcript pg.12, lines 18-25; pg.13, lines 1-3;

ex post facto law

Documen: 11, pg.68, pg. ID# 118;

Revocation Transcript pg.13, lines 24-25; pg.14, lines 1-7;

.11 ABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

Creedon v. New Hampshire, 154 F.Supp. 176 (D.N.H. 1957)

Gray v. Internal Affairs Bureau, 292 F.Supp.2d 475

(S.D.N.Y. 2003).

Loos v. American Energy Savers, Inc., 168 Ill,.App.3d 558, 522

N. E-.2d 8U (1988)

Mugler v. Kansas 1213, U.S, 623, 659-60,.

Miranda e. Arizona, 384 U.,S» 436, 125.

Miller v. Kansas, 230 F.2d 486, 489.

Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 599.

Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F.945.

Louisville, v. Motley, 211 tf.S. 149, 29 S.Ct. 42.

Melo v. U.S. 505 F.2d 1026.

PAGE NUMBER

STATUTES AND RULES

OTHER .

Revocation Transcript pg.7, lines 11-24;

Documen; 11, pg.19 of 75, pg. ID# 69;

Revocation Transcript pg.7,lines 11-24, 18-25; pg.l5.,lines 1-9;

Rights >f indigenous People', Part II, Article 6

U.C.C. L-207 / 1-308; U.C.C. 1-103

% i

jable of authorities cited

CASES

McNutt v. GMAC, 298 U.S, 178.

PAGE j^U \/IBER

Wuest v. tfuest, 53 Ca2d 339, 127 P2d 934, 937.

Re Cavitt, 254 P.599.

Dillon

Dillon, 187 P.27.

Griffin v. Matthews, 310 F.Supp 341, 342 (1969).

Industrial Addition Association v. C.I.R., 323 U.S. 310, 313.

Middleton v. Low, 30 C596, citing Prosser v. Secor, 5 Barb, (N.Y.)

607, 608.

Merritt v„ Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F.2d 739.

Babcock & Wilson v. Parsons Coro • » 430 F.2d 531 (1970).

Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F.945.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 15 L-Ed. 691, 19 How 393.

Matter of C.H., 210 Mont. 184, 683 P.2d 931, 938.

STATUTES AND RULES

OTHER .

Document 11, pg. 26 of 75, pg. ID# 76

Docket f29 entered 03/16/23 (3:19cr00391); Docket #20 entered

06/22/23 (3:19cr00392)

Fed.R.App.P. 24(3) (prior approval)

Docket 11, pg. 26 of 75, pg. ID# 76

.11 ABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

Louisville, v. Motley, 211 D.S. 149, 29 S.Ct, 42,

PAGE NUMBER

Marbury v. Madison, 5 D.S. 137, 174, 176 (1803).

STATUTES AND RULES

OTHER .

■;

;■!

9 *

JURISDICTION ■

£j] For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case

was APR. 29, 2024

[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

jX ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Co\ irt of

, and a coiy.of the

Appeals on. the following date: APR* 29, 2024

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari Was granted

(.elate)

(date) on

to and including_______

in Application No. :__ A

The jurisdiction of this- Court is invoked under 28 U.; S. C. §1254(1).

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was

A.copy of that decision appears at Appendix----------[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

______________________ , and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

(date) in

(date) on

to and including_:__

Application Nd. __ A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

1 *

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Article 1 of the Bill of Rights (First Bill of Rights)

Pg-l

First Article of the Bill of Rights

Pg*2

First Amendment Law

Pg-2

Article VI. Clause 2, United States Republic Constitution

Pg-2

14th Amendment

Pg*3

Fifth Article of the Bill of rights

Pg*3

Article

VI,

United States Republic

Constitution

Pg-5

Articles 9 & 10 of the Bill of Rights

PS- 5

Article IV, Section 4 of the Unites States Reppublic Constitution

Pg-6

Article IX & X of the Bill of Rights

Pg-6

14t.h Amendment

Pg-6

14th Amendment

Pg-7

13th Amendment

Pg-7

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3. U.S. Republic Const.

P.g-7

Article 1,

Article 3- Section 2. U.S.. Republic Const,

pg-7

pg.7

the 3/5 clause

Pg - 2

14th Amendment

Pg-S

Pg-8

Article

Section 10.,

Section

3.,

Clause 1.

U.S. Republic Const.

Article 1, Section 9. U.S. Republic Const.

pg.8

13 th Amendment

Pg-8

pg.9

14th Amendment

13th Amendment

Article

Section 9,

Clause

Pg-9

pg.9

Article 1, Section, Clause 1

pg.,9

Article VI, Bill of Rights

pg.9

Article Vi.,

pg.10

Bill

Rights

Article III, U.S. Republic Const.

pg.10

Article III, U.S. Const.

pg.ll

Eleventh Amendment

Article III, U.S. Republic Const..

Pg-li

PS-12

Article I¥, Section 4

pg.12

Article III, U.S. Republic Const.

Pg«12

Article VI

Pg»13

14th Amendment

Pg. 14

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Article III, D.S. Republic Const.

Article II, (Article of Confederation)

Article 5,(Articles of Confederation)

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, U,S. Republic Constitution

Articles of Confederation

Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1-18. D.S. Republic Constitution

P£*15

Tenth Article of the Bill of Rights

Tenth and Eleventh Amendment, U.S. Republic Const.

Tenth Article of the Bill of Rights

3 J.Storv commentaries on the Constitution of the United States

Fixth and Sixth Amendment, U.S. Republic Constitution

Article III, D.S. Republic Constitution

Fifth Amendment D.S. Republic Constitution

Sixth Amendment, U.S. Republic Constitution

14th Amendment

13th Amendment

pg.23

pg.16

Pg-16

pg.17

pg.23

Pg-23

pg.24

pg.26

pg.30

Pg.34

pg.34

pg.35

’ i

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Affiant affirms that the sentence was imposed in violation of the United States

in that the plaintiff ] accuser never provided proof of jurisdiction (D.O.A.O.)

Delegation of Authority Order from congress to act judicially at Article III, and

that

the United

Division,

States District court, Western district of Louisiana, Monroe

is not a 'District Court of the United States’, and therefore lacked

jurisdiction to impose such sentence in absence of written proof of jurisdiction

filed into the case.

The court further erred by consenting, stipulating, and agreeing that jurisdiction

exists, when jurisdiction canuot be conferred upon the court in this manner. Again

the court erred by imposing a sentence over three times the sentencing guideline

range of S-14 months,

to give affiant time to address apparent mental health

issues, in violation of Tapia v. United States, and the sentencing reform act. The

court ana

the plaintiff conspired against the rights of affiant and deprived

affiant of rights under 'eolor-of-law* and 'color-of-authority', in that they both

agreed

that

the court had

jurisdiction of

affiant via a

state

owned

birth

certificate with a ALL CAPITAL LETTERS person, who is identified as affiant, a

'black1 person of color or race, clearly not identifying affiant, who is of flesh

and blood natural person with a pedigree / bloodline of the human race.

The plaintiff and the court erroneously called affiants Moorish Divine and National

Movement

legal

notice

judicial

notice;

name

declaration;

proclamation;

correction; a simple name change, when in truth it is a Nunc Fro Tunc 'political

status' "state", correction of affiants true name and nationality and allegiance

to his Moorish American estate. These acts by both the plaintiff and the court

denied affiant the right

to a came and a nationality, and cultural, political

status of choice, compelling affiant to be a U.S. citizen, ’artificial / corporate

'person', who,is civilly dead in the eyes of law, civiliter mortuus, a clear cause

of ’conflict of identity* and of nationality as well as a violation of the First

Bill

rights

freedom of

expression /

association or disassociation,

and a

violation of International Law, humanitarian treaties which prohibits compelled

association. Affiant was denied the right to self autonomy, self goverance, and

the right to travel, to free movement, which are all absolute rights.

The plaintiff and the court violated Article VI of the United States Republic

Constitution to uphold and support the supreme law of the land, which includes

United Nations Charters, Treaties. Affiant affirms that the plaintiff and court

claimed jurisdiction of affiant via a ex post facto law, being the 14th amendment

* 4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

person (black), which is a ex post facto slave label that was abolished with the

institution of slavery in the 13th amendment. Affiant affirms that this label in

conjunction

'persons*

with

the black code laws,

clause retroactively applied

reestablishes

to all

the

3/5th of

all other

'persons'

born under

the

14th

amendment citizenry. According to the ruling in the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford

case,

negroes,

blacks,

coloreds,

according

the

United

States

Republic

Constitution, and meaning and intent of the framing founding fathers, are not, and

could

not

'citizens'

the Union States,

that word

used

la the

Constitution. Affiant affirms that these acts by the plaintiff and court proves

that the birth certificate declares negroes, blacks, coloreds, african-americans,

etc., as 'property' (subjects) via the state wherein they reside, proof being the

state seal on the certificate of live birth. These acts of 'denationalization* and

'genocide* are clear crimes against humanity.

Affiant affirms that the Unlawful warrant and arrest of this natural person is a

act of kidnapping. Affiant affirms that the court denied him of 'due process of

law', by failing to have the plaintiff / accuser bear the burden of proof that

jurisdiction exists before proceeding with the hearing. The court proceeded with

the hearing three times after jurisdiction was challenged, asking for pleas into

the case, allowing the plaintiff to call witnesses, stipulating to jurisdiction

via the birth certificate and compelled U.S. citizenry, while at the same time

acknowledging

that

the

court had

a oath bound

sworn duty

first address

jurisdictional issues before the court could proceed, but failed to do so each time

and continued to violate 'due process' by proceeding with the case each time the

jurisdiction issue was brought forth. Affiant affirms that the judge practiced law

from the bench,

entering pleas on affiants' behalf, acting as prosecutor,

and

being biased threatening to duct tape affiant three (3) times.The court should have

dismissed the case in absence of proof of jurisdiction over person, subject matter,

or where due process was denied.

Affiant affirms that the ability to regulate the people is unconstitutional, and

repugnant to the constitution, in that the United States is a federal Corporation,

and that codes, including United States codes, statutes, and ordinances regulate

government employees only, they cannot ever regulate the people. Affiant affirms

that the court erred

in denying his §2255 motion to vacate on frivilous grounds

that affiant did not raise as grounds for relief, and therefore failed to address

the jurisdictional claims, and failed to order the plaintiff / accuser to respond

1 4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

to the allegations in which the plaintiff /accuser bears the burden of proof. The

court denied the §2255 motion under false pretenses that affiant challenged the

statutory maximum of the sentence, when in fact the six (6) grounds for relief in

affiants §2255 raised no issue concerning a statutory maximum sentence.

Affiant challenged the very power of the court to hear, decide, and apply law

(jursidiction) which, a claim of this sortc<wu>f

be waived and can be raised at

anytime for the first time even on appeal. Nor can a jurisdictional claim of this

sort be waived, or procedurally barred / defaulted, and should have been addressed

by the plaintiff / accuser/. Affiant affirms that the plaintiff /accuser failed to

address

the

jurisdictional

claims

(allegations)

asserted against

its

reponse, and therefore under Fed.R.Civ.P. (8), admitted to the allegations against

it, when it failed to admit, plead, or otherwise defend.

Affiant affirms that all statutes fall under the United Nations and International

law, and that all public offices and officers are foreign states, entities, and

agents, and that the United States of America is a foreign jurisdiction to moors,

who are Al citizens (AA222141) with a permanent character, which comes from the

United States Codes, Title 22, Chapter 2,

Sections 141-143. It references the

highest rank of citizen. Therefore, amendment XI of the United States Republic

constitution prohibits

suits by citizens of another state, or by citizens or

subjects of any foreign state. Affiant affirms that he is immune from criminal and

civil jurisdiction by, and of, the Union States Rights Republic (U.S.A.) pursuant

to, but not limited to the United States supreme Court and the 'Acts of State'.

Affiant again affirms that the sentence imposed violated Tapia v. United States

and the sentencing reform act, by imposing or increasing a sentence to promote

rehabilitation / treatment per 18 USC §3582(a). Affiant affirms that there is no

injured party, that the United States is an entity, per

28 . iUSC-

Chapter .176,

section 3002 15A, therefore the United States cannot write a complaint, and that

for a crime to exist there has to be an injured party. Some identifiable human

being has to complain under penalty of perjury for an action to commence. Affiant

affirms

that his discovery requests were denied in the form of a 'averment of

jurisdiction*

which

jurisdiction of

all

would

have

parties

enabled

involved.

affiant

Affiant

determine

requested

that

the

status

and

all

parties

interest provide official proof of oath of office and official bonds. Affiants

discovery request went unanswered by the plaintiff and the court.Affiant further

affirms that the prosecution rests in the executive branch, but as an assistant

•

4•

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

U.S. attorney , is an officer of the court, which is the judicial branch, which is

a 'conflict of interest', seperation of powers. Affiant affirms that the Article

III judge sitting in a territorial / municipal / administrative court, becomes a

'clerk* magistrate / administrative officer of the executive branch and cannot

administer judicial power.

Affiant affirms that the court committed 'fraud' because the court failed to tell

affiant that they had no jurisdiction over living, breathing, human beings. Affiant

again affirms that the court does not determine jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction

cannot be obtained by the court by simply saying they have it. The plaintiff /

accuser must prove that the court has jurisdiction, and must provide written proof

of jurisdiction, and file that written proof into the case. Affiant affirms that

the plaintiff failed to prov.'<k written proof of jurisdiction, making any sentence

or finding of the court void. Affiant affirms that as a declared and proclaimed

Moor,

the plaintiff

clearly stated for the record,

he is protected under

International law.

Affiant affirms that the District Court approved affiant to proceed with his §2255

motion to vacate in forma pauperis, and that under the Fed.R.App.P. rule 24(3)

(prior approval), affiant should have been able to proceed on appeal to the Fifth

Circuit

Court

authorization.

certificate

of Appeals

The

for a certificate of

appellate

of appealability,

erred

court

due

appealability without further

dismissing affiants' motion for

affiant not paying the filing fee,

the

appellate court should have accepted affiants motion as perviously authorized, and

this violation of law has prejudiced, affaint with undue delay. Affiant affirms that

the plaintiff and court treated affiant without due respect and 'due process

rights under the law, and affiants substantive rights and constitutionally secured

rights and immunities have been violated, breached, and abridged under 'colorable

circumstances. Affiant affirms that the plaintiff and the court treated affiant

as a refugee, a nationless, stateless rogue, of 'suspect classification', a

that any unilateral, adhesion contracts,

constructs, alleging a violation of supervised release, are void ab initio, and

forthwith 'cured' and 'rescinded*. Affiant was denied all lawful constitutional

'protected

person'.

Affiant

affirms

safeguards established by the 'supreme law of the land* and should be released

immediately from false imprisonment imposed by unconstituional tribunals.

* *

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

The United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit, has so far departed from the

accepted

and

usual

course

judicial

proceedings,

certificate of appealability for want of prosecution,

filing

fee when affiant

had

dismissing

affiants

for failing to file the

documented prior approval in the district court

proceeding in which he is appealing. The United States Court of Appeals Fifth

Circuit

sanctioned

affiants

§2255

the clear

motion

plain error of the district court who denied

vacate

without

first

addressing

and

deciding

the

jurisdictional issues, that could not be waived or defaulted by affiant because

the plaintiff /accuser bears the burden of proof. As affiant is a declared /

prodded Aboriginal / indigenous, Sundry free moor, Natural Person, and all cases

affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a

state shall be a party, the Supreme court has original jurisdiction, it's only

approriate for this court to exercise its supervisory power, to keep the inferior

courts bound and in check to it's fudiciary duties and oath bound obligations to

uphold and support the constitutional covenant of itS

national

implications

construction, which has

precedential importance. For these reasons the court

should grant affiants petition.

* *

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

M( R<jVvV5

AuliiwuA—-

Date:

July 5+K

_________ _____

2024

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.