ii

JUDICIAL NOTICE INTRODUCTION Nassor family of Bey, and Nura family of Bey Natural Aboriginal Indigenous Sovereign Americans/Al Moroccans (Moors/Muurs) by heritage, and living beneficiaries; heirs apparent by Jus sanguinis (right of blood) and Jus soli (right of the soil) of the extreme far west (Al Maghreb Al Aqsa) “Greater Morocco” the Empire; the ancient lands eons before 1492 European invasion, colonization and occupation of our Estates. We are progenies in the Preamble “We the People” that ordained the Constitution for the united States of America. The Republic adopted 229 years ago in 1788 by the modern European sons of the foreign United Colony/States/Corporations to do business on our land at Northwest Morocco/North America; “The North Gate” The 1787 Morocco Empire Treaty of Amity and Commerce sanctioned the modern European sons to come into existing government at North America. The United States is subject to the jurisdiction of The People “…The sovereignty of the United States resides in the people, and Congress cannot invoke the sovereignty of the people to override their will as declared in the Constitution.” Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935) As a result of semantic deception and fraudulent acts of the several respondents in this case, Human Rights violations were perpetrated against Nassor that also seriously affected Nura. Nevertheless, their case was thrown out without an honest trial by jury. Amendment VII clearly stipulates that ALL matters involving living people and their property assets in excess of $20 are to be decided under Common Law Trial by Jury. In Summary: Nassor’s freedom of movement and right to travel to work peacefully was violated. He was hijacked and kidnapped by violent Albion European males with guns shouting orders. He was interrogated, falsely charged with felony, and maliciously prosecuted for owning his Nationality Card. Nassor verbally expressed that he did not consent to invasive search of his body, automobile, or his personal belongings against his will, but these highwaymen forcefully ransacked everything. They stole his truck, his personal items, and took him to Hillsborough County Detention where they stripped him naked, shackled and chained his hands and feet; put him in a cage, and transported him like an animal. They chained him to a gurney forcing him to go to Tampa General Hospital for non-consenting medical experiments. Nassor’s biological property was extorted by denying him a phone call to the outside for help, and denied counsel where in exchange; and against his will; pricked him with a needle for which the dangers are yet unknown; they took images of his fingers, his face; attempted denationalization, defiled his religion, and slandered his name in public when there was No probable cause, No warrants, No Grand Jury indictment; No crime; they tampered video evidence, and he was deprived of life, liberty, and property without a Trial by Jury. Injuries, damages, theft, and unknown dangers of the needle prick; still severely affects both Nassor and Nura mentally and physically to this day.

1

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether Aboriginal Indigenous Sovereign American1 People of the Land have the right to be heard by proper Article III jurisdiction Court of Record and Article III Judge functioning in said capacity in a Bill of Rights Amendment VII Trial by Jury, unrestricted in accord with the Organic American Constitution? II. Whether Treason and/or Crimes against Humanity offences executed under color of law by the State of Florida Franchise Defendant-Respondents against the Aboriginal Indigenous Sovereign American People of the Land; will be excused by this United States Supreme Court, or not? III. Whether U.S. District Court-Respondents in their presumed authority were sanctioned by de jure Law to terminate and close a constitutional case for any reason other than innocence or lack of liability of each and every wrongdoing State of Florida Franchise Defendant-Respondent, or not? IV. Whether offences of Treason and/or Crimes against Humanity perpetrated under color of law; color of office, by the U.S. District Court- Respondents in their presumed authority against the Aboriginal Indigenous Sovereign American People of the Land, will be excused by this United States Supreme Court, or not? V. Whether the U.S. District Court-Respondents in their presumed authority were sanctioned to usurp Amendment VII Trial by Jury in place of their corporate tribunal in regards to the Aboriginal Indigenous Sovereign American Peoples’ case, or not? VI. Whether the offence of accessory to fraud committed by the U.S. Appeals Court-Respondents in their presumed authority against the Aboriginal Indigenous Sovereign American Peoples of the Land, for aiding and abetting the U.S. District Courts-Respondents; will be excused by this United States Supreme Court, or not?

1 American: n. an Aboriginal or one of the various copper-colored natives found on the American Continent by the Europeans; the original application of the name. Websters 1828 American Dictionary of the English language and 1936. Websters unabridged 20th century dictionary.

2

NATURAL PEOPLE AND PARTIES BELOW

Natural Man/Natural People

A Natural living Man and Woman, Nassor Mooruts Bey and Nura Washington Bey (Presenters); Aboriginal Indigenous American/Al Moroccan Moors/Muurs of the American Lands by heritage; and Birthright Heirs apparent - NOT lost at sea. We affirm and declare our Right of Reversion of the state. We make no claim with respect to the title and misrepresented name, MAN OF STRAW, and nom de guerre being a title and the spurious creation of the foreign de facto United States corporate operators, actors, and owners. We surrender and assign any, and all reversionary interests to the foreign United States and subsidiaries for full ‘acquittanced discharge’ settlement and ‘Closure’ of our reliance. Title 12 USC § 95 (a) (2) and we DO NOT assume any liability or debts however contrived among its associates. We DO NOT consent to stand as ‘Surety’ for the foreign UNITED STATES / U.S. corporations, entities, owners, directors or administrators, nor for its subsidiaries or associates at any point or moment in time.

RESPONDENTS:

State of Florida Franchise Defendant-Respondents

David Gee d/b/a Sheriff Hillsborough County, et. al, Bob Buckhorn, d/b/a Mayor, et. al, City of Tampa, et. al, Stephen Hiles, W.C. Harrison; were the defendant-appellees in the other two cases in the Respondent courts below.

U.S. Appeals Court-Respondents Stanley Marcus, Jill Anne Pryor, Robert Lanier Anderson dba circuit judges under the color of law for private corporate franchise styles as, “United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals” (D-U-N-S# 956858625).

U.S. District Court-Respondents

Steven Douglas Merryday (BAR# 201261) dba Judge, Elizabeth Ann Jenkins (BAR# 233935) dba magistrate under the color of law for private corporate franchise styles as, “The United States District Court Middle District of Florida Tampa Division” (Delaware SoS corporate file # 3383789)

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS JUDICIAL NOTICE INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... ii

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ......................................................................................... 1

NATURAL PEOPLE AND PARTIES BELOW ............................................................ 2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................... 4

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ................................................................... 6

OPINIONS BELOW ...................................................................................................... 6

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ............................................................................... 6

CONSTITUTIONAL AND MOROCCO TREATY PROVISIONS INVOLVED .......... 7

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED.................................................................... 8

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................................................................................... 9

REASONS OF FRAUD FOR GRANTING THE WRIT.............................................. 15

I. Sovereign American People of the Land by heritage, and living beneficiaries have the Constitutional, Treaty, and Natural protected Birthright to EQUAL REMEDY and RECOVERY and FREEDOM from persons using semantic deception, and non-disclosure to commit fraud .............. 15

II. Sovereign American People of the Land by heritage, and living beneficiaries have the Constitutional, Treaty, and Natural protected Birthright to full disclosure of alleged ‘officers of the court’ and to be heard by actual constitutional Court of Record with an Article III Judge functioning in said capacity in an Amendment VII Trial Jury, as guaranteed by the Organic American Constitution for redress, remedy and recovery of violations against us. ............................................................................ 16

III. Decisions of U.S. Appeals Court-Respondents to not review our Appellate Briefs in entirety – showing bias toward U.S. District Court-Respondents lacking jurisdiction where both courts are based on semantic deception, constructive fraud, and colorable private statutory rules, shall be held accountable for usurping fair Trial by Jury mandated by Amendment VII Constitution for the united States of America; The

4

Republic, and the 1787, Morocco Treaty of Peace and Friendship; 1776 Declaration of Independence; and the Article 34, Magna Carta. .......................... 16

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 16

APPENDIX …………………………………………………………………….……………. 19 Appendix-1. Appeals Decision Case No. 16-10608-AA, February 6, 2017 Appendix-2. District’s Decision Docket, January 27, 2016 Appendix-3. Sovereign American’s Notice of Appeal, February 16, 2016

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

12 USC § 95 (a) .................................................................................................... 2 1776 Declaration of Independence .................................................................... 15 18 USC § 1962 RICO ......................................................................................... 17 18 USC § 2382 Misprision of Treason ........................................................ 10, 17 18 USC § 2384 Seditious Conspiracy................................................................ 17 18 USC § 241 Conspiracy against rights .......................................................... 17 18 USC § 4 - Misprision of Felony .................................................................... 10 18 USC §242 Deprivation of rights under color of law .................................... 17 2 Black 620, see also Crandell v. Nevada, 6 Wall 35; ...................................... 10 2010 Declaration of Right of Indigenous Peoples ............................................. 17 28 USC § 132 ................................................................................................... 7, 8 28 USC § 2072(b) ............................................................................... 7, 11, 14, 15 30A Am Jur Judgments 44, 45 ......................................................................... 12 42 USC §1983 Civil action for Deprivation of Rights ...................................... 17 5 USC § 3331 ..................................................................................................... 10 Amendment IX. Constitution for the united States of America .......................... 7 Amendment VII Constitution for the united States of America ............. 7, 12, 13 Ames v. Kansas, 111 U.S. 449, 4 S.Ct. 437, 28 L.Ed. 482 .................................. 9 Article 21. Morocco Empire Treaty of Peace and Friendship (1787).................. 6 Article 34, Magna Carta .............................................................................. 15, 17 Article I § 10, Cls 1 Constitution for the united States of America .................. 11 Article I § 9, Cls 8 Constitution for the united States of America .................... 11

5

Article III Constitution for the united States of America ............... 12, 14, 15, 17 Article VI Constitution for the united States of America ................................ 6, 7 Article VI, Cls 2 Constitution for the united States of America ....................... 16 Bank of US v. Planters Bank, 9 Wheaton (22 US) 904, 6 L. Ed. 24 ................ 16 Bar Association Treaty of 1947 ......................................................................... 14 Basso v. UPL, 495 F. 2d 906 ............................................................................. 11 California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109, 93 S.Ct. 390, 34 L.Ed.2d 342 (1972) ....... 13 Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 ............................................................................ 10 Clearfield Trust Company vs. United States 318 U. S. 363 – 371 (1942) ........ 16 Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938) ............................................ 16 Dungey v. Spencer (1855) File ID: L00567 ......................................................... 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)....................................................... 8, 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) ............................................................ 7, 14 Hale v. Henkel 201 U.S. 43 ............................................................................... 10 Jarman v. Mason, 102 Okl. 278, 229 P. 459, 460 ............................................... 9 Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959) .............................................. 13 Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., N.Y., 53 S.Ct. 721 ............................................ 9 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1803 ............................................................. 11 Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442 ................................................. 16 Old Wayne Mut. L. Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 .............. 12 People v. Londoner, 13 Colo. 303, 22 P. 764, 6 L.R.A. 444 ................................. 9 Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935) ...................................................... ii Rodriques v. Ray Donavan 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985) ................................. 14 U.S. 479, 77 L.Ed. 1331....................................................................................... 9 U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 .............................................................. 10 U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 ....................................................................... 10 Valley v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 ......... 14

6

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI _________♦ _________

In Propria Persona (our own proper selves), “We the People” Nassor Mooruts Bey, and Nura Washington Bey; Moors/Muurs In full Life, age of majority, request a Writ of Certiorari to review the decision of U.S. Appeals Court-Respondents at the “United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit” filed on February 6, 2016. There was NO validity or good-faith determination of de jure Constitutional Law in either the U.S. District Court-Respondents: Steven Douglas Merryday (BAR# 201261) or Elizabeth Ann Jenkins (BAR# 233935) at the “United States District Court Middle District of Florida Tampa Division”; nor U.S. Appeals Court-Respondents: Stanley Marcus, Jill Anne Pryor, or Robert Lanier Anderson at the “United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals” (D-U-N-S# 956858625/Federal Governmental Services Corporations). The named alleged ‘officers of the courts’ have contrived to mischaracterize, defraud, and falsely relegate our status to corporate “United States Citizens”. The said Respondents consistently attempt to criminally press gang us into a foreign statutory jurisdiction, and political status of fraudulent 14th Amendment corporate persons having no intention to uphold sworn oaths to the organic Constitution for the united States of America. The Republic. Said respondents endeavor to marginalize our injuries by ignoring their wrongdoings against us, and through semantic deception, the alleged ‘officers of the courts’ used un-Constitutional rules in place of the Supreme Law of the Land to make sure that we never receive our due process in a true Court of Law. The purpose of our appeal was deliberately misconstrued by the U.S. Appeals Court-Respondents that attempt to weasel out of penalties that all respondents face for Human Rights violations and fraud. By Right, “We the People” are owed access to a legitimate Article III Common Law Court of Record and an Article III Judge functioning in said capacity in a Bill of Rights Amendment VII Trial by Jury.

OPINIONS BELOW Appendix-1: The appeals Case No. 16-10608-AA affirming their decision entered 2/6/2017 of the district court case: 8:15-cv-00545-SDM-EAJ; Appendix-2: District Court’s Docket closing case 1/27/2016; Appendix-3: Sovereign American’s Notice of Appeal entered 2/16/2016

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT The U.S. Appeals Court-Respondents final judgment was entered on February 6, 2017. This United States Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) where cases in the courts of appeals may be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court for the united States of America. The Republic .

7

CONSTITUTIONAL AND MOROCCO TREATY PROVISIONS INVOLVED Article 21, Morocco Empire Treaty of Peace and Friendship (1787) provides: “if a Citizen of the United States…” and a Moor has a controversy, “…the Law of the Country [Supreme Law of the Land] shall take place and equal Justice [fair due process] shall be rendered…” Constitution for the united States of America. The republic Article I, Section 9 Provides: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:…” and Section 10 Provides: “No State shall … grant any Title of Nobility.” Article III, Section 2 Provides: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; —between a State and Citizens of another State; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. Article VI Provides: “…This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding…” Amendment V Provides: “… No person shall be… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

Amendment VII Provides: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” Amendment IX Provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Florida Constitution: Article I - Declaration of Rights, “SECTION 21. Access to courts.—The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.”

8

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED This case involves 28 USC § 132 - Creation and composition of district courts: “(a) There shall be in each judicial district a district court which shall be a court of record known as the United States District Court for the district.” This case involves 28 USC § 2072(b): “Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.” This case involves Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m): “TIME LIMIT FOR SERVICE. If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. This subdivision (m) does not apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f), 4(h)(2), or 4(j)(1)”

This case involves Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) “Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

9

STATEMENT OF THE CASE In Propria Persona (pro per), we filed a Common Law Civil Action2 for BILL OF RIGHTS / TREATY VIOLATIONS, and FRAUD with evidence and exhibits in the United States District Court for the judicial district. Pursuant to, 28 USC § 132 - Creation and composition of district courts (a), “There shall be in each judicial district a district court which shall be a court of record known as the United States District Court for the district.” TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE3: “Judicial District” NOT “District of Columbia” and a court of record4 that functions according to the course of common law.

The U.S. Appeals Court-Respondents ignored the most fundamental constitutional requirement of jurisdiction for which Steven Douglas Merryday (“Merryday”) refused to disclose and kept secret; thus, his tribunal has no valid or proven authority to hear our common law case, and he DOES NOT function as a Trial by Jury as required by Amendment VII of the Organic American Constitution. Our Appellate Brief contains recurrent instances of Merryday’s bad behavior while acting under color of law and color of office. As an inalienable right of Sovereign “We the People” of the land by heritage and living beneficiaries, we decreed; by Quo Warranto Averment of Jurisdiction5 (with Pontiff’s July 4, 2014 Civil Orders attached), and by Writ of Mandamus6 to question Merryday’s presumed authority, and demanded that 2 CIVIL ACTION are all cases at law and in equity by averment of complaint to enforce or protect a right or prevent a wrong. It does not include criminal cases. Black’s Law Dictionary, rev. 4th ed. p. 311 (1968) 3 Judicial notice, or knowledge upon which a judge is bound to act without having it proved in evidence. - Black's Law 4th edition. Judges are sworn to obey the American Constitution and “...are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or counteract evasions thereof, it is their duty in authorized proceedings to give full effect to the existing constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion as to the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequences, … and guard against their infringement by legislative fiat … it is the duty of the courts to declare that the Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment.” [16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 155:, (emphasis added) 4 "A Court of Record is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions indepen- dently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpet-ual memorial"[Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689] 5 Quo Warranto Averment of Jurisdiction for information against usurpers of a franchise or office Jarman v. Mason, 102 Okl. 278, 229 P. 459, 460; “…employed for trying the title to a corporate or other franchise, or to a public or corporate office.” Ames v. Kansas, 111 U.S. 449, 4 S.Ct. 437, 28 L.Ed. 482; People v. Londoner, 13 Colo. 303, 22 P. 764, 6 L.R.A. 444. An extraordinary writ “… prerogative in nature, addressed to preventing a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted. Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., N.Y., 53 S.Ct. 721, 289 U.S. 479, 77 L.Ed. 1331. 6 MANDAMUS Lat. We command. This is the name of a writ (formerly a high prerogative writ) which issues from a court of superior jurisdiction, and is directed to a private or

10

he properly provide the discovery, and to properly fulfill his obligations to the Organic American Constitution. The Writs cited stare decisis res judicata that Merryday defiantly ignored, and defaulted, yet decided by his own will to continue under color of law and render rulings according to statutes outside the parameters of Supreme Law of the Land; thus, engaged usurpation by some undisclosed defective jurisdiction. His actions constitute a deprivation of Due Process and Due Course of Law7 that we are owed; an abridgement of our substantive rights 28 USC § 2072(b); also Misprision of Treason8 "Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading." U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932. Any presumed authority as Judge or Magistrate that denies said duty under color of law is guilty of a felony. 18 USC § 4 - Misprision of Felony; 18 USC § 2382 Misprision of Treason. U.S. District Court-Respondents extorted Federal Reserve Notes from us; otherwise, they withheld the required forms thereby prohibiting notification by summons to the Defendant-Respondents even though our Common Law complaint contained a Mandatory Notice of Lawful Constitutional Right to free access to the court without court fees (Appendix-2 Doc. 3, 5); citing, United States Supreme Court stare decisis, and Florida Republic Constitution9 section 21. (2 Black 620, see also Crandell v. Nevada, 6 Wall 35; Hale v. Henkel 201 U.S. 43). Merryday flatly denied our request for him to uphold his oath obligation 5 USC § 3331 for protection of our Constitutionally Protected Rights. (Appendix-2 Doc. 40, 41), and then he plainly ignored the second Judicial Notice of Oath to uphold the American Republic Constitution (Article 4 § 4) and Treaty Protected Rights. (Article 6) (Appendix-2 Doc. 52)

municipal corporation, or any of its officers, or to an executive, administrative or judicial officer, or to an inferior court, commanding the performance of a particular act therein specified, and belonging to his or their public, official, or ministerial duty, or directing the restoration of the complainant to rights or privileges of which he has been illegally deprived. Lahiff v. St. Joseph, etc., Soc., 76 Conn. 648, 57 A. 692, 65 L.R.A. 92, 100 Am.St.Rep. 1012. 7 Amendment V No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; “Due course of law, this phrase is synonymous with "due process of law" or "law of the land" and means law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice.” - Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Dunmeyer 19 KAN 542. 8 Misprision of Treason: “…(1) a contempt against the sovereign, the government, or the courts of justice, including not only contempts of court, properly so called, but also all forms of seditious or disloyal conduct and leze-majesty;…” Black’s Law Dictionary rev. 4th. Ed. p. 1151 (1968) 9 Florida Constitution: Article 1 - Declaration of Rights, SECTION 21. Access to courts.-The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.

11

Another deceptive practice of Merryday; as justification for deleting our Common Law Complaint and all Defendants-Respondents thereof; off of the record; is to dishonestly order amendments to our document for syntax; instead of good reasons to aid in presenting our valid claim on its merits; for which – now, the U.S. Appeals Court-Respondents are holding the count of amendments against us. Our “Appellate Brief Statement of Issues” contained Merryday’s lack of jurisdiction, and his un-Constitutional removal of all defendants without the authority of a Trial by Jury’s finding reasons of innocence, or a lack of liability. It contained objections to his null and void rulings; along with his breach of oath; unlawful press-ganging into the fraudulent 14th amendment corporate persons jurisdiction; misrepresented and fabricated evidence; his ignorance of notarized affidavit of Constitutional Right to Travel material evidence; misclassified us as “pro se” litigants; he ignored key material evidence tampering; he misstated facts and law, as with false statements asserted by attorneys for the Defendant-Respondents. Yet, he made orders without authority regardless of the numerous bad behavior - all in favor of the wrongdoing State of Florida Defendant-Respondents; outside of the required parameters of the American Constitution. "The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980). "The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F 2d 416. "... Federal jurisdiction cannot be assumed, but must be clearly shown." Brooks v. Yawkey, 200 F. 2d 633] "Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is a non-waivable defect which may be raised at any stage of the proceedings." [State v. LaPier, 961 P.2d 1274,289 Mont. 392,1998 MT 174 (1998)] These gross injustices also involved an egregious conflict of interest where both U.S. District Court-Respondents, and the attorneys for the State of Florida Defendant-Respondents; in addition to having titles of nobility; are still members of the same private BAR Association fraternity; thus, sitting on both sides of the bench in prejudice against us; moreover, Article I § 9, Cls 8 Constitution for the united States of America, and Article I § 10, Cls 1 Constitution for the united States of America prohibits titles of nobility enabling unequal and unjust distinctions; thus, the attorneys for the defendants have NO STANDING to represent anyone because they are in clear violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. “A constitutional provision that right and justice shall be administered according to such guarantees is mandatory upon the departments of government. Hence, it requires that a Cause shall not be heard before a prejudicial court; the word “prejudice”, however, in the constitutional provision that justice shall be administered without prejudice. These guarantees cannot be destroyed, denied, abridged or impaired by legislative enactments.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1803.

12

TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE: The decision of U.S. Appeals Court Respondents ignored that courts without authority are NULL and VOID. Merryday has no judicial authority. The United States Supreme Court ruled, "if a court is without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered, in law, as trespassers." [Basso v. UPL, 495 F. 2d 906; Brook v. Yawkey, 200 F. 2d 633; Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)] The U.S. Appeals Court Respondent’s decision in this case essentially and unlawfully confers jurisdiction; “didn’t abuse his discretion” (Appendx-1 P.2 last line) and affirms a void decision of the U.S. District Court Respondent, Merryday to deny our constitutional claims of Human Rights violations, and relegate our complaint based on non-disclosure, semantic deception, and un-Constitutional private time limit rules - NOT LAW - to deny us our Trial by Jury; thereby, abridging our substantive rights. 28 USC § 2072(b). We would not be having these unnecessary problems if we had proper jurisdiction of Amendment VII Trial by Jury with an Article III Judge functioning in said capacity in a Common Law Court of Record that we are owed. "A court [Appeals] cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court", Old Wayne Mut L. Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907). There is NO binding obligation for us to show cause to U.S. District Court-Respondent’s unsanctioned tribunal of no jurisdiction, nor follow un-Constitutional private federal rules. “A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid adjudication, but may be entirely disregarded, or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. It is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. ... It is not entitled to enforcement ... All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid.” 30A Am Jur Judgments 44, 45. The law says that ALL of Merryday’s orders are invalid, null and void, however, to expose the deception, we will expand. When reviewing the docket you will see ONLY 13 DAYS between the time we started giving notice10 to

10 "notice" means information, an advice, or written warning, in more or less formal shape, intended to apprise a person of some proceeding in which his interests are involved, or informing him of some fact which it is his right to know and the duty of the notifying party to communicate. Black’s Law Dictionary, rev. 4th ed. p. 1210 (1968)

13

the joining defendants, and the time that Merryday terminated and closed down our common law complaint (Appendix-2 Doc. 66, 67: 01/14/2016; 69: 01/27/2016); – NOT – the 120 OR 90 DAYS as artfully constructed (Appendix-1). However, just prior to that, the Writ of Mandamus (Appendx-2 Doc. 62) directing him to properly uphold his obligations to the American Constitution was filed, and Que Warranto of Jurisdiction (Appendix-2 Doc. 65) directing him to provide proper documented proof of jurisdiction was filed. Just ONE DAY after we filed the Notice of Default of the Que Warranto (Appendix Doc. 68), he used the un-Constitutional 120-day/90-day semantics and rules - NOT LAW; as an excuse to close down our case (Appendix Doc. 69). U.S. Appeals Court Respondents intentionally ignored, and abandoned the review of all the other numerous misconducts and objections committed by U.S. District Court-Respondents cited in our 46 page Appellate Brief and our 27 page follow-up Response Brief, even though these misconducts are clearly stated on the FACE and second page of the 3 page Notice of Appeal on the Grounds of Treason. What’s the use of expending care in writing the Notice, and the appellate briefs, if the appeals review people are not reading them to review what the issues are. “We will therefore not review any orders that were not specified in the Bey’s notice of appeal…”(Appendx-1 P2 foot notes L.11) The U.S. Appeals Court Respondent’s use of the phrase, “manifest and overriding intent” (Appendix-1 P.2 L.8) on the face of the Notice is a moot requirement; however, semantic trickery because NOWHERE in common law is this phrase found; however, as clearly indicated by the words: “NOTICE IS GIVEN” on the FACE of our “NOTICE OF APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER ON THE GROUNDS OF TREASON” and following and thereafter, is the history of misconduct and corruption for review that goes onto the second page that cite the words and more: “…the final unconstitutional order to dismiss the case with prejudice; that include unconstitutional dismissal of individual defendant perpetrators out of the lawsuit with prejudice where “No Judge” has the constitutional power or authority to act…” lack of jurisdiction, etc., also cited in Merryday’s void order attached. (Appendix-3) Only the Organic American Constitution confers jurisdiction and the appeals decision WAS NOT based on law; however wrongfully asserted that “district properly dismissed them” because of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) “failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted” (Appendix-1 footnotes P.2 L.14,15). NOWHERE in the Bill of Rights or Amendment VII require that the Trial by Jury shall be preserved “except for failure to state a claim”; however, the law does say that, “lack of jurisdiction cannot be waived and jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon a federal court by consent, inaction or stipulation. California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109, 93 S.Ct. 390, 34 L.Ed.2d 342 (1972). Even if these tribunals were legitimate courts of law; In Propria Persona (pro per),

14

“complaints are to be considered without regard to technicality; and are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233; "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." [Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) "Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense…” Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823 ME 15:450 The public Common Law Court (jurisdiction on the land) required by Amendment VII as part of the American Common Law Continental Court System that predates all “federal” and “territorial” courts by 200 years; has validity to stand; however, undisclosed and/or Admiralty or Maritime courts have NO RIGHT to stand. see United States Supreme Court case, Milligan, Ex parte 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866). No actual judge having jurisdiction over the land can be a member of the Bar Association [Steven Douglas Merryday (BAR# 201261); Elizabeth Ann Jenkins (BAR# 233935)]. All members of the Bar owe allegiance to a foreign government and are only here by treaty, (See Bar Association Treaty of 1947) and are precluded from holding ANY public office by the organic American Constitution. The U.S. Appeals Respondents, turned our case back over to DEAD-END unsanctioned un-Constitutional U.S. District Respondents without Common Law Authority that terminated and closed the case instead of recognizing that ALL of Merryday’s rulings are VOID ab initio, and any other colluding unsanctioned Individual(s) acting as judges must be recused, and replaced with a constitutional Court of Record Article III Judge functioning in said capacity in an Amendment VII Trial by Jury, as guaranteed by the Organic American Constitution. The Republic11."It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon" [Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635] Any court that proceed [District or Appeals] against the People with statutes and not the law of the land are not common law courts and have no jurisdiction over the People. All codes, rules, [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m); Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)] and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…" Rodriques v. Ray Donavan 769

11 "Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th. ed. p. 626.

15

F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985) U.S. Department of Labor. "The law is well-settled that a void order or judgement is void even before reversal", Valley v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 ( 1920 ) TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE: WE ARE STILL INJURED (corpus delicti) without remedy or recovery which was clearly proven beyond a reasonable doubt with the existence of physical and documented offences of the perpetrators; as with admission of wrongdoings by their own filed documents; as with the ignored evidence of formal notice of nolle prosequi that Nassor was an innocent man of all false charges perpetrated against him. (filed by Mark Alan Ober, BAR# 230804 dba prosecutor for the foreign for-profit commercial corporation styled as, “STATE OF FLORIDA”). Therefore, Under color of law, and color of authority, We, the victims, are being arbitrarily deprived our Human Rights by un-Constitutional statutes and Constructive Fraud12 without mercy or justice. 28 USC § 2072(b) on all levels.

REASONS OF FRAUD FOR GRANTING THE WRIT I. Sovereign American People of the Land by heritage, and living beneficiaries have the Constitutional, Treaty, and Natural protected Birthright to EQUAL REMEDY and RECOVERY and FREEDOM from persons using semantic deception, and non-disclosure to commit fraud against us to entrap us into contracts that we never volunteered or consented to “in behalf of the government” when in fact, they have usurped lawful government positions in place of corporate private, foreign, for – profit, " governmental services" in the illicit business of selling us, and then at every level of their organization; (City, County, State, Federal) they aid each other using private corporate statutes and rules to evade their own criminal trials by barring our access to legitimate courts of record; thereby, assure their continued corrupt cycle. We were attacked again without remedy or recovery.

12 Constructive fraud consists in any act of commission or omission contrary to legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed, which is contrary to good conscience and operates to the injury of another. Or, as otherwise defined, it is an act, statement or omission which operates as a virtual fraud on an individual, or which, if generally permitted, would be prejudicial to the public welfare, and yet may have been unconnected with any selfish or evil design. Or, according to Story, constructive frauds are such acts or contracts as, though not originating in any actual evil design or contrivance to perpetrate a positive fraud or injury upon other persons, are yet, by their tendency to deceive or mislead other persons, or to violate private or public confidence, or to impair or injure the public interests, deemed equally reprehensible with actual fraud. 1 Story, Eq.Jur. § 258. Code Ga.1882, § 3173 (Civ.Code 1910, § 4622) ; People v. Kelly, 35 Barb., N.Y., 457; Jackson v. Jackson, 47 Ga. 99; Massachusetts Ben. L. Ass'n v. Robinson, 104 Ga. 256, 30 S.E. 918, 42 L.R. A. 261; Allen v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 269 Ill. 234, 109 N.E. 1035, 1038.

16

II. Sovereign American People of the Land by heritage, and living beneficiaries have the Constitutional, Treaty, and Natural protected Birthright to full disclosure of alleged ‘officers of the court’ and to be heard by actual constitutional Court of Record with an Article III Judge functioning in said capacity in an Amendment VII Trial Jury, as guaranteed by the Organic American Constitution for redress, remedy and recovery of violations against us. III. Decisions of U.S. Appeals Court-Respondents to not review our Appellate Briefs in entirety – showing bias toward U.S. District Court-Respondents lacking jurisdiction where both courts are based on semantic deception, constructive fraud, and colorable private statutory rules, shall be held accountable for usurping fair Trial by Jury mandated by Amendment VII Constitution for the united States of America; The Republic, and the 1787, Morocco Treaty of Peace and Friendship; 1776 Declaration of Independence; and the Article 34, Magna Carta.

CONCLUSION The constitution was ordained and established by the people “for” the united States of America a Republican form of government (Article IV § 4). Therefore, government was created by an act of the people; the creation cannot overrule the creator. Judges are our servants, not our masters. Article VI, Cls 2 Constitution for the united States of America13 denies the ability of the servant to act as master to anyone, and mandates, “All executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath14 or affirmation to support this Constitution." A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts. Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938); “Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen … where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs)] and ‘Securities’ [Checks] is concerned. Clearfield Trust Company vs. United States 318 U. S. 363 – 371 (1942): “… For purposes of suit, such 13 Article VI, “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding”. 14 5 USC § 3331. All judges are to produce a certified copy of your constitutional oath of office, as required by Article VI, Paragraph 3 Constitution for the united States of America; All judges are to produce affidavits declaring that you did not pay for or otherwise make or promise consideration to secure your office.

17

corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government.” Bank of US v. Planters Bank, 9 Wheaton (22 US) 904, 6 L. Ed. 24... “A judge is not immune for tortious15 acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity. "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442 No man is above the law: "No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance, with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law are bound to obey it." "It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it gives." [U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882)] The Respondents on all levels, (City, County, State, and Federal) continue under color of law without constitutional authority to abrogate our protected Human Rights that are protected by the Supreme Creator of everything seen and unseen; the Rights Bill of Rights; the Constitution for the united States of America, the Republic; 1787 Morocco Treaty of Peace and Friendship, 2010 Declaration of Right of Indigenous Peoples; 18 USC § 241 Conspiracy against rights16;18 USC § 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law17; and 42 USC §1983 Civil ACTION for Deprivation of Rights18. In regards to treason against “We the People” in violation of the Article III Section 4 Constitution for the united States of America. The Respondents engaged in the following: 18 USC § 1962 RICO19; 18 USC § 2382 Misprision

15 TORTIOUS. Wrongful; of the nature of a tort. TORT (from Lat. torquere, to twist, tortus, twisted, wrested aside). A private or civil wrong or injury.3.” Stump v. Sparkman, id., 435 U.S. 349 16 18 USC §241: CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; 17 18 USC § 242: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State the deprivation of any rights shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; 18 42 USC §1983: “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress…” 19 18 USC § 1962 RICO: Prohibited activities (c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct

2 8

20171

#

1 61

2 3 4 5 6

2 1

3

4

5 3

6 1 4

71 2

81

1, # 2 34 5 6 7

9 8

10

11

12

13

3 8

20171

by Bob 1

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 2113

21 20

2220

23

24 RESPONSE to Motion re 23

25

26

27 23 19--motion to dismiss; directing the Clerk to TERMINATE Hillsborough

4 8

20171

28 RESPONSE in Opposition re 25

30

31

29 12

32

33 29

34

35 8 --amended complaint; granting 3425

complaint; amended complaint due 5/22/2015; denying as moot 1329

36

8

37 RESPONSE to Motion re 71

38 41 . 7

39 38Nassor Mooruts Bey, Nura A.N.H. Washington Bey. (AMD) (Entered:

40

41 39 3840

5 8

20171

42 by

43

44 361 2

3

46 42

1

45 4139

47 RESPONSE to Motion re 7 45

1 2

48 44

49 45 7

5048 44 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second

51

52

53to file a Case Management Report by 7/13/2015. Signed by Judge Steven D.

54

6 8

20171

55 42 4446 48

56 55

57

36

58 12

591 Exhibit A - SOP 820,

# 2 3

60 RESPONSE in Opposition re 58

61 RESPONSE in Opposition re 59

62

63 5658 59

64 63

65

66

67

6865

7 8

20171

69

70

71

72

73

74 69

75

74

76

74

74

77 74

6 0.60

8 8

20171