Willie Frank Walker v. Ashley Moody, Attorney General of Florida, et al.

The Court lacks subject matter and personal jurisdiction for the reasons below. Page | 2

1. This Court, and all public offices, is defined under FRCP Rule 4(j) as a FOREIGN STATE, and as defined under TITLE 28-JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE The Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976 is a United States law, codified at Title 28, §§§§§ 1330, 1332, 1391(f), 1441(d), and 1602-1611, and is being jurisdictionally challenged, and “full disclosure” of the “true” jurisdiction of this Court has been asked but has stayed silent’?

2. Any failure to disclose the true jurisdiction is a violation of 15 Statues at Large, For this was passed to remove the people of the united States of America from the federal citizenship under the 14th amendment. Chapter 249 (section 1), enacted July 27, 1868? Ijis the court’s responsibility to prove it has subject matter jurisdiction, and where judge arbitrarily claims the court has jurisdiction, he is violating the defendants rioht tn due process of the law. It is, in fact, the plaintiff s responsibility to prove, on the record. That jurisdiction exists, and jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even years later, and even collaterally, as in a private administrative process, as was done herein. It is the petitioner’s right to challenge jurisdiction, and it is the plaintiff/prosecutor’s duty to prove it exist. The respondent herein was given the opportunity (multiple times) to put the facts of jurisdiction on the administrative record, but acquiesced bv tacit procuration