**** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL Brenda D, Forman, CLERK 10/3/2016 11:34:31 AM.**#** 1855 Florida Constitution (as ratified in 1968 with subsequent amendment) Article I, Declaration of Rights, Section 7: “The military power shall be subordinate to the civil.” Notice of Special appearance by Hatchett, William: General Executor, Beneficial Owner, Creditor, Authorized Representative, and 1 Lien Holder of HATCHETT, WILLIAM, D/B/A, WILLIAM HATCHETTO®™. WILLIAM HATCHETT, ESTATE Office of the Executor, General Post Office, 3816 NW 88 Terrace Cooper City, [Non-domestic] FL [zip exempt]. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, AND IN FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO’$%: 16-0362-AF10 (Fictitious Plaintiff) So vs WILLIAM HATCHETTOS™ (Defendant/Registered Trade-Name Of Hatchett, William/Trusv/Estate/ Corporation/Company/Private Property of Hatchett, William) Hatchett, William (Private Living Being/Third Party of Interest! Real Party in Interest/National/Creditor Beneficiary/General Executor/Injured party) \ / NOTICE OF ENTRY OF APPEARANCINOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, by the Third Party of Interest/Real party in Interest/Authorized Representative/CEO/Beneficiary/National, Hatchett, William, in propria persona (my own proper self), formerly known as the Person/Trus/Estate/Corporation, WILLIAM HATCHETT, that the beneficiary, on the behalf of the estate of WILLIAM HATCHETT, ESTATE; hereby, files this Notice of Entry of Appearance to inform the parties that all appearances made by the third party of Interest will not be made voluntary, because the third party of interest appears only under threat, duress, and coercion out of fear of being fined or incarcerated. The Third Party of Interest respectfully requests all pleadings filed by him to be read and acted upon by an honorable, flesh and blood, man or woman to answer, in order to afford (Registered Trade Name/Trust/Estate/corporation) WILLIAM HATCHETT and the third party of interest, “Remedy and conformity”, in accordance with government employees swom oaths to support and defend, and to protected rights given by the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights, as the People were led to believe and understand. The Third Party of Interest, Hatchett, William, appears as the Beneficiary/CEO/Authorized Representative/Real party in interest, in this action, in order to administrate the Estate of WILLIAM HATCHETT. The third party of interest is not to be confused with WILLIAM HATCHETT, because the Third party of Interest is a flesh and blood being with a soul, while WILLIAM HATCHETT is a corporate legal fiction, aka, person. The term person, according to 26 USC 7701(a) (1), “Shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company, or corporation.” A Corporation is dead or artificial at law because it is not real. Hence, the Latin word, “corpse,” which means dead body. The word corporation is derived from the Latin word corpse, so the significance of the etymology of the word corpse is very clear when proving that a corporation is not real because it is dead. It is common knowledge that all corporations are styled in all capital letters. Whereas, the Birth Name of WILLIAM HATCHETT, under a Birth Certificate and IRS Codes is define as a Trust, Estate, corporation, association, partnership, or offic corporation and is registered to the government as a ward or property, and was by the government (SSN/TIN/EIN). Below is the third party of interest’s fee Schedule, because all of parties in the case are receiving compensation and wages for their time under their job title (judge, prosecutor, public defender, clerk of courts); therefore, it would only be fair to compensate the third party of interest for his time, because under the requirement of labor law, compensation for a man’s time cannot be denied. Fee Schedule The third party of interest is entitled to be paid for his private contracted services and labor, to include, research, skills, travel, time and knowledge, while working in a “foreignadministrative capacity” my price to perform in that “foreign administrative capacity” within that “Office” is Five Hundred Thousand (500,000) “Federal reserve notes” an hour, with a three-hour minimum. If the third party of interest is arrested, detained or obstructed from his lawful business by any foreign agent, or required to act in a “foreign administrative capacity” my fee is, one million (1,000,000) “Federal reserve notes” per hour, starting at the moment of detainment or arrest, with a three-hour minimum (September 30, 2016). CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Entry of ‘Appearance has been furnished by US Mail to: Broward County Clerk of Courts, 201 SE 6* Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301; Broward State Attomey’s Office, 201 SE 6" Street, Suite 655, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301; and the Broward County Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Scott Israel, 2601 W. Broward Blvd., Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312, onthis_/ day of ___@ €7_ 2016. HETT, ESTATE Office of the Executor, General Post Office, 3816 NW 88 Terrace Cooper City, [Non-domestic] FL [zip exempt].1855 Florida Constitution (as ratified in 1968 with subsequent amendment) Article 1, Declaration of Rights, Section 7: “The military power shall be subordinate to the civil.” Notice of Special appearance by Hatchett, William: General Executor, Beneficial Owner, Creditor, Authorized Representative, and 1*' Lien Holder of HATCHETT, WILLIAM, D/B/A, WILLIAM HATCHETTO®™, WILLIAM HATCHETT, ESTATE Office of the Executor, General Post Office, 3816 NW 88 Terrace Cooper City, [Non-domestic] FL [zip exempt]. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, AND IN FOR BROWARD. COUNTY, FLORIDA. STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO’S.: 16-0362-AF10 (Fictitious Plaintiff) vs WILLIAM HATCHETTO®™ (Defendant/Registered Trade-Name Of Hatchett, William/Trust/Estate/ Corporation/Company/Private Property of Hatchett, William) Hatchett, William (Private Living Being/Third Party of Interest/ Real Party in Interest/National/Creditor Beneficiary/General Executor/Injured party) MOTION TO DISMISSCOMES NOW, the third Party of Interest/Real Party in Interest/CEO/General Executor/Beneficiary/Settlor/Private Individual/National/Injured Party/Registered owner of WILLIAM HATCHETT/Authorized Representative, Hatchett, William, in propria persona (my ‘own proper self), formerly known as the Person/Trust/Estate/Corporation, WILLIAM HATCHETT©®™; hereby, moves this court to enter an order dismissing the state’s case due to lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, the third party of interest is not being charged, and etc. As grounds for this motion, the third party of interest will state as follows: The third party of interest is not a lawyer and his pleadings cannot be treated as such. In fact, according to Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), a complaint, "however inartfully pleaded," must be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Id., at 520-521, quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). “[A] pro se petitioner’s pleadings should be liberally construed to do substantial justice.” United States v. Garth, 188 F.3d 99, 108 (3d Cir.1999), Additionally, jurisdiction can be challenged at any time. "Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co, 495 F 2d 906, 910. And the court cannot ignore lack of jurisdiction. "There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215. It matters not how the issues is raised, Latana vs, Hopper, 102 F. 2d 118; Menutt vs GMAC, 298 US 178... Etc. Ad infinitum. No enforcement can proceed until jurisdiction is proved. Crater Lake Co. vs. Ore., 26 F Supp 363, and can be challenged at any time, Stuck vs. Cal, 211 F. 2d 389; Gilman vs. Gilman, 41 W 2d 319; 249 F. 2d 361; West vs. Martin, Beauty College vs. Huse, Brandy vs. Richardson, ad infinitum. ‘A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. Itis a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993). "Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even ‘on appeal.” Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp. 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985). ‘Void judgments are those rendered by a court which lacked jurisdiction, either of the subject matter or the parties, Wahl v. Round Valley Bank 38 Ariz, 411, 300 P. 955 (1931); Tube City Mining & Milling Co. v. Otterson, 16 Ariz. 305, 146 P. 203 (1914); and Milliken v. Meyer, 311 US. 457, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed, 2d 278 (1940). A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be attacked atany time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court, Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999). A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and without legal effect, Lubben v. Selevtive Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645, 14 A.L.R. Fed. 298 (C.A.1 Mass. 1972). "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Maine v ‘Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 250. "A universal principle as old as the law is that proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property." Norwood ¥. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732. "Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio.” In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846, "Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P27, If any Tribunal (court) finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over a person and subject matter, the case must be dismissed. (See Louisville v. Motley 2111 US 149, 298, CT 42. “The Accuser Bears the Burden of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”.) “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 trespasser.” (See Elliot vs. Piersol, 1 pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328) “A court 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). “Where there is no jurisdiction there is no judge; the proceeding is as nothing. Such has been the law from the days of the Marshalsea, 10 Coke 68; also Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall 335,351.” Manning v. Ketcham, 58 F.2d 948. Coram non judice, “In the presence of a person not a judge. When a suit is brought and determined in a court which has no jurisdiction in the matter, then itis said to be coram non jjudice, and the judgment is void.” (See Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 13" Reprint (1998)),STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS ‘An Arrest Warrant has recently been issued for the arrest of defendant WILLIAM HATCHETT for Counts 1-5, Criminal Use of Personal ID /INFOBond; count 6, Grand Theft Bond; and counts 7-10, Unlawful Filing of False DOC/RECDS/PROPBond. This case stems from Broward Circuit Civil Case Number CACE10016541. The defendant hired a company to settle the civil controversy by bonding the case. (See attached Exhibit A, which is an Affidavit of William Hatchett with attached receipts, totaling $1,500 dollars). The intent of the defendant was not to defraud anyone; therefore, this case should be dismissed because the defendant acted with good faith. Intent is an essential element in Florida that must be proven. Additionally, the defendant did not prepare nor signed the presentments/bonds that gave rise to this current criminal action; therefore, the defendant is not liable for any of the fraud stemming from any fraudulent presentments. The Shabazz-E1 Foundation is liable for any charges stemming from any fraudulent bonds/presentments that the said company prepared, signed, and filed. The defendant is not the real party in interest in this matter, therefore, this case should be dismissed and the STATE OF FLORIDA should file charges on the Real party in interest, The government, THE STATE OF FLORIDA has sued a private trust owned by a private individual, therefore, this case must be dismissed, because the STATE OF FLORIDA and the UNITED STATES cannot trespass against private property (trust) that they do not own. (See Exhibit B, Exhibit B proves that the defendant is private property. FIRST JURISDICTIONAL GROUND. (1.) The Plaintiff's action is barred due to the fact that defendant, WILLIAM HATCHETT is not, a subject to the STATE OF FLORIDA nor to the UNITED STATES? jurisdiction, because the said person is a private trust owned by the third party of interest/real party in interest, Hatchett, William; therefore, the defendant is a private trust belonging to a private individual. (Sce attached Exhibits B. Exhibit B demonstrates that the third party is the owner of the defendant WILLIAM HATCHETT. Exhibits B also demonstrates that the defendant is private property.) (2.)The defendant, as private property, is not within the state’s, city, county, or the plaintiffs? grace to regulate, because according to the US Supreme Court we can only regulate property that we own, The Supreme Court ruled that Municipalities cannot exert any acts of ‘ownership and control over property that is not owned by them, see Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, $33 US 606, 150 L. Ed, 2d 592, 121 S. Ct (2001) (no expiration date on the taking, clause for city’s illegal enforcement of its codes on the man’s private property and restricting the man’s business), affirming both Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 US 1003, 120 L. Ed 2d 798 (1992)(butterfly activists and code enforcement cannot restrict development of the man’s “Private” swampland unless they lawfully acquire the land first, surveying with binoculars constitutes a takings”.). Due to the status of the third party and his private property, the defendant, he is a private individual and the state has no jurisdiction over anything private. The high Courts, through their citations of authority, have frequentlye @ ; declared, that “...where any state proceeds against a private individual in a judicial forum it is well settled that the state, county, municipality, etc, waives any immunity to counters, cross claims and complaints, by direct or collateral means regarding the matters involved.” (See Luckenback v, The Thekla, 295 F 1020, 226 US 328; Lyders v. Lund, 32 F2d 308.). (3.)Due to the fact that the plaintiffs’ have filed an action against private property, the defendant, the court should dismiss the plaintiff's action, because the court cannot exercise its jurisdiction over a foreign trustprivate trust. “If any Tribunal (court) finds absence of proof. of jurisdiction over a person and subject matter, the case must be dismissed. The Accuser Bears the Burden of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.” (See Louisville v. Motley 211 US 149 (1908). SECOND JURISDICTIONAL GROUND, (1.) The third party/Real party, Hatchett, William, is a Washitaw Moor. The Washitaw Moors are recognized as their own sovereign Nation within the US and the Washitaw Moors are indigenous to the American land mass. As a Washitaw Moor the third party is a Foreign National. Foreign Nationals are not US citizens and are outside of the jurisdiction of the UNITED STATES. (2.) The defendant is classified as a Negro/A frican-American. According to Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 US (19 Howard) 393 (1857), “Negroes—whether held to slavery or free- ‘were not included and were not intended to be included in the ‘category’ of ‘citizen’ [subjects] of the UNITED STATES.” (3.)According to the above United States Supreme Court case, the defendant charged in this case WILLIAM HATCHETT, is outside of the jurisdiction (power) of the UNITED STATES corporation, which is a corporation according to title 28 USC 3002 Section 15A, which states that the United States is a Federal Corporation and not a Government, including the Judiciary Procedural Section. This court should dismiss the plaintiff's action, due to a lack of jurisdiction, because the defendant, as a Negro, is not a US citizen and is outside of the jurisdiction of the UNITED STATES’ administration of domestic trusts THIRD JURISDICTIONAL GROUND: FAILURE TO NAME THE REAL PARTY OR INTEREST. (1.)Due to the fact that the Real party in Interest has not been charged in the plaintiffs? action, the plaintiffs” action is false and is based in fraud. Failure to charge the real party in interest is a grave error, because according to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 17, “A party must prosecute an action in the name of the Real Party in Interest.” The said rule is especially true, because itis a well-established Common law, “Standing,” that we can only sue persons who have injured us and violated our rights. When the plaintiffs”deliberately charged the wrong person, the defendant, it was equivalent to them charging an innocent man for no reason at all, As a result of this grave error, this court should dismiss the plaintiffs’ action for failure to name the real party in Interest. The third party will always be the real party in interest, because the corporate legal person known as WILLIAM HATCHETT cannot walk and talk without the aid of its authorized representative, Hatchett, William. WILLIAM HATCHETT is just a piece of paper known as the Birth Certificate. (See Authenticated Affidavit of Truth, marked as Exhibit B). (2.) The wrong defendant has been charged by the plaintiff, because the third party is not the misnomer and fictitious legal person known as the defendant WILLIAM HATCHETT. ‘The defendant is clearly a corporation, aka, a legal fiction; therefore, the said defendant can never be the real party of interest because the said defendant only exists when the third party agrees to play the part or is forced to play the part. The Real Party in Interest in this matter will always be Hatchet, William, because as a natural person, he is alive and is capable of injuring someone, breaching a contract, or damaging someone’s property. (G.)Due to the plaintiff's failure to name the real party in interest in their complaint, the plaintiff lacks the necessary standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts. No standing equals no jurisdiction, because one needs to demonstrate injury and violation of a legal right in order to have the necessary standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts. This court should dismiss the plaintiff's action due to failure to name the real party of interest, GROUND IV. NEGROES ARE NOT US CITIZENS 1.) According to Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 US (19 Howard) 393 (1857), Negroes—whether held to slavery or free~ were not included and were not intended to be included in the ‘category’ of ‘citizen’ (subjects) of the UNITED STATES. 2.) According to the above United States Supreme Court Case, the defendant charged in this case WILLIAM HATCHETT, is outside of the jurisdiction (power) of the UNITED STATES corporation, which is a corporation according to title 28 USC 3002 Section 15A, which states that the United States is a Federal Corporation and not a Government, including the Judiciary Procedural Section. 3.) "Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026. 4.) A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan, 1093 (1993), 5.) "A court 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, 278. Ct. 236 (1907). 6.) "There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215, 7.) "The burden shifis to the court to prove jurisdiction.” Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F 2d 416 8.) "Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp. 150 9.) "The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980) 10.) “Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2d 906, 910. 11.) "Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal." Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp. 478 So. 24. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985) 12) "Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F, Supp. 150. 13.) “Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist." ‘Stuck v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751.211 P2d 389. 14) “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." Maine v Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 250. 15.) "The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v Lavine 415 U. S. $33. 16.) "The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416. 17) “Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.” Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp 150. 18.) "A universal principle as old as the law is that proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property.” Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732. 19) ‘Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio." In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846. 20) "Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27. 21) “A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance." Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed.e e ; 22.) If any Tribunal (court) finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over a person and subject matter, the case must be dismissed. (See Louisville v. Motley 2111 US 149, 29 S. CT. 42. “The Accuser Bears the Burden of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”.) 23) “Lack of Federal Jurisdiction cannot be waived or overcome by agreement of parties.” (See Griffin v. Matthews, 310 F Supra 341, 342 (1969): and “Want of Jurisdiction may not be cured by consent of parties”. (See Industrial Addition Association v. C.LR., 323 US 310, 313.) 24) The Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, 28 USC 1602-1611, allows the jurisdiction of the court to be challenged. 25.) “Public officials are not immune from suit when they transcend their lawful authority by invading rights.” (See AFLC10 v. Woodward, 406 F. 2d 137 t) 26.) “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.” Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622. GROUND V. NO HOLDER-IN-DUE-COURSE AND NO CORPUS DELICTI 1.) The STATE “OF” FLORIDA is not the injured party, How can the STATE OF FLORIDA be the victim when the word of means belonging to; ownership; possession. Who owns FLORIDA? Whoever owns FLORIDA has to prosecute the case as the Corpus Delicti, because whoever owns FLORIDA js the holder-in-due-course. The holder-in-due-course has to press charges. (See UCC 3-308). All law is contract. Contract is commercial business; therefore, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) applies. The UCC governs all business transactions and corporations. The UCC is International Law. 2.) On December 26, 1933, 49 Statute 3097, Treaty Series 881, “Convention on Rights and Duties of States,” CONGRESS replaced STATUTES with international law, placing all states under intemational law. Therefore, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) applies to the United States, which is a federal corporation according to Title 28 USC section 3002 (15) (A). Also see, William Dixon v. The United States, 1 Marsh 117, 181 (1811), Justice John Marshall explained that "The United States” was a corporation and all of the politicians were the officers of that corporation. 3.) Fora crime to exist there must be an injured party (Corpus Delicti). There can be no sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this Constitutional Right. (See Sherer v. Cullen 481 F. 945.) 4.) The Black’s Law Dictionary defines Corpus Delicti as follows: Corpus Delicti: The body of the offence; the essence of the crime It was a general rule not to convict unless the corpus delicti can be established, that is, until the dead body has been found. Instances have occurred of a person being convicted of having killedanother, who, after the supposed criminal has been put to death for the supposed offence, has ‘made his appearance. Alive. The wisdom of the rule is apparent; but in order to insure justice, in extreme cases, it may be competent to prove the basis of the corpus delicti by presumptive, but conclusive, evidence. 5.) The STATE OF FLORIDA is not a flesh and blood victim, because the STATE OF FLORIDA is a corporation; therefore, it is not and will never be the Corpus Delicti. Can the state produce the owner of FLORIDA and a flesh and blood victim, a body (Habeas Corpus)? If the state cannot produce the Corpus Delicti there is no crime and this court will lack subject matter jurisdiction because the state cannot produce an injured flesh and blood victim, in order to have standing to bring a genuine controversy before a court of law. Where is the state’s injured body? 6.) The STATE OF FLORIDA has to present the signature of the owner of FLORIDA, as the holder in due course, and the Corpus Delicti (flesh and blood victim), in order to press charges against the defendant, which is all necessary to have a valid contract. All law is contract. In other words, there is no contract without the signature of the holder in due course and the Corpus Delicti. “If there is no contract there is no case.” (See Erie Railroad Company vs. Tompkins, 304 US 64 (1938). Alll of the contracts the defendant has ever entered with the STATE OF FLORIDA are void. 7.) The STATE OF FLORIDA contracted with the third party of interest and the defendant without the proper authorization, because there is and was no signature from the holder- in-due-course, and without the Corpus Delicti, a flesh and blood victim as the STATE OF FLORIDA; therefore, this case must be dismissed, because no valid contract exists for prosecution, 8.) The plaintiff must provide proof of signatures and status as holder in due course, according to Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 3-308, in order to have a valid contract. The state has failed to produce the signature of the holder in due course; therefore, if there is no contract there is no case (see Erie Railroad Company vs. Tompkins, 304 US 64 (1938). 9.) The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause provides that, “[iJn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” We have held that this bedrock procedural guarantee applies to both federal and state prosecutions. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 406 (1965); and Crawford v. Washington (02-9410) 541 U.S. 36 (2004). Based upon the above US Supreme Court case law, the third party of interest and the defendant seeks to cross examine the alleged injured victim, which is the STATE OF FLORIDA, in order to confront his accuser; however, it can’t be done, because the UNITED STATES is a federal corporation according to Title 28 USC section 3002 (15)(A), and every state is a sub-corporation under it. Also see, William Dixon v. The United States, 1 Marsh 117, 181 (1811), Justice John Marshall explained that “The United States was a corporation and all of the politicians were the officers of that corporation.”10 10.) __A-corporation is something that is artificial and dead, hence the word corpse, which is the origin of the word corporation, which means dead body; so therefore, it is impossible for the defendant to confront his accusers, because defendant is being charged by a corporation called, “THE STATE OF FLORIDA.” More specifically, the defendant will never be able to confront his accuser in this case because there is no flesh and blood victim as the injured party (corpus delicti). For a crime to exist there must be an injured party (Corpus Delicti). There can be no sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this Constitutional Right. (See Sherer v. Cullen 481 F. 945.) GROUND VI. 117" AMENDMENT IMMUNITY 1.) The 11 Amendment under the US Constitution reads as follows: “The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, ‘commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.” 2.) On December 9, 1945, International Organization Immunities Act relinquished every public office of the United States to the United Nations. This law makes all public officials foreign citizens, barring them from judicial power. All public officials are administrative agents of the US Corporation. They have no judicial power whatsoever. 3.) 22 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 92.12-92.31 FR Heading “Foreign Relationship” states that oath is required to take office. 4.) Title 8 USC 1481 states, once oath of office is taken citizenship is relinquished, thus the cath taker becomes a foreign entity, agency, or state, That means every public office is a foreign state, even all political subdivisions; i.e, every single court is considered a separate foreign entity. 5,) Title 22 USC, “Foreign Relations and Intercourse”, Chapter 11 identifies all public officials as foreign agents. 6.) All “judicial power" of the "inferior courts" comes from the Judiciary Act of 1789, as did the Attomey General position. "Judicial power" comes from Article IIL, Section 2 of the Constitution, The Eleventh Amendment removed all "judicial power" in law, equity, treaties, contract law, and the right of the State to bring suit against the People. The positions of Attorney General and Prosecutor, of both the United States and the several states, come under the Judicial Branch not the Executive branch of the government. All attomeys come under the Judicial Branch and are judicial officers under the Supreme Court, not under the Secretary of State as licensed professionals, which means they can only represent the Court and not the People or the State. The Eleventh Amendment removed all "judicial power" from the "inferior courts" and the prosecutor’s office as well as from all court officers in law, equity, and so forth. 7.) The Eleventh Amendment also makes a foreign state separation from the position of the Public Office positions to throw off the People. The People have Eleventh Amendment immunity, because there is no "JUDICIAL POWER‘ of the “inferior courts" and the People have Foreign Sovereign Immunity.un 8.) The third party of interest and the defendant hold the inherent right of the 11% Amendment, which states in part: “The judicial power shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted by a Foreign State.” 9.) Municipal, county, or state court lacks jurisdiction to hear any case under the foreign. state definitions, coming from the 11" Amendment under the US Constitution. This jurisdiction lies with the United States District Court under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) Statutes pursuant to 28 USC 1330. 10.) The fact that public officials are not citizens, but rather, foreign citizens, this case must be dismissed because this court lacks jurisdiction to enforce judicial power. This court is an administrative court and not a criminal court. In other words, no judicial power makes this court an administrative court. Also, this following act proves that this court is an administrative agency: The Administrative Procedures Act, Title 5 - Government Organization and Employees Administrative Procedures Act part I - the agencies generally chapter 5 subchapter ii - administrative procedure °551. Definitions. For the purpose of this subchapter - * (1) "agency" means each authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency. UND VIL IMPROPER VENUE ANI CTI COURT) 1) This is the definition of an Article III court: Article III tribunals consist entirely of certain federal courts. These courts are the Supreme Court of the United States and the inferior courts established by the Congress, which currently are the 13 United States courts of appeals, the 94 United States district courts, and the U.S. Court of International Trade. They constitute the judicial branch of the government (which is defined by Article III of the Constitution). 2.) Under the Constitution, Congress can vest these courts with jurisdiction to hear cases involving the Constitution or federal law and certain cases involving disputes between citizens of different states or countries. Article IIL includes provisions to protect the courts against influence by the other branches of government: judges may not have their salaries reduced during their tenure in office, and their appointment is for life (barring impeachment and removal for bad behavior). See also United States federal judge. 3.) The US Supreme Court has ruled that only Article III courts may render final judgments in cases involving life, liberty, and private property rights, with limited exceptions. 4.) Article IIL, Section, 1, U.S. Constitution “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.” RTICLE It12 5.) Article III, Sec. 2, U.S. Constitution “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.” 6.) By definition this court is not an Article III Court, therefore, this proceeding is not in the proper venue and this administrative court must dismiss this case. WHEREFORE, the third party of interest, by and through the defendant, respectfully requests this court to dismiss the plaintifP's case due to improper venue, a lack of jurisdiction, the third party of interest/Real party of interest has not been charged yet, no corpus delicti, and due to no valid contracts to commence with prosecution, because it is evident that there was never any probable cause to make an arrest. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss has been furnished by US Mail to: Broward County Clerk of Courts, 201 SE 6" Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301; Broward State Attomey’s Office, 201 SE 6" Street, Suite 655, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301; and the Broward County Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Scott Israel, 2601 W. Broward Blvd., Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312, on this ¢ day of__ © ame Respectfully S} By Executor: WILLIAM HATCHETT, ESTATE Office of the Executor, General Post Office, 3816 NW 88 Terrace Cooper City, [Non-domestic] FL [zip exempt].“EXHIBIT A.”GAM CSY/ CACE Al meta hl AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM HATCHETT. Som cious Ei |, the affiant, William Hatchett, being first duly swom, under oath, deposes and says: (1.) The affiant asserts that he has first-hand knowledge of the testimony he has given herein. (2) The affiant paid the Shabazz-F1 Foundation a total of $1,500 dollars. (see attached receipts.) The attached 4 four receipts total $1,5000 dollars. (3.) The affiant paid the Shabazz-El Foundation under the impression that the Bonds and other documents that the affiant purchased were legit and not fraudulent. « (4.) The affiant asserts that he is not liable for the documents and presentments prepared by the Shabazz-El Foundation, because the affiant was under the impression that the documents prepared were not fraudulent. WHEREFORE, this foregoing Affidavit of William Hatchet is true and correct and not misleading. The affiant is willing to testify as to the truthfulness of this foregoing affidavit. Please accept this affidavit as being true and correct. ce: Howard dC. Forman, the Clerk of the Clerk; and Attomey for Bank of America, on this /¢ day of pl 7: 2016.OF WILLIAM HATCHETT. STATE OF Florida SS: AFFIDAVIT COUNTY OF Broward (1) That I am the affiant herein; (2.) The Affiant states that he is over the mature age of 18 and is not a minor and therefore is. capable of conducting his own business affairs; 3.) That I am domiciled in County of Broward, state of Florida; (4.) That I have read the document attached hereto as, “Affidavit of William Hatchet,” and I understand and know the contents thereof; (5.)That I have read this affidavit and knows the contents hereof; (6) That this affidavit is true to the best of my oe and belief. William B. Hatchett 3816 NW 88 Terrace Cooper City F1.33024, Sportage eben gs ie AS tenet Jf 2016. Cane Notary Public At Tirge~ State 2 commission #822065 ‘ames, 288 a AARORNOTARY. COM ‘My Commission expires:e e. Sales Heceipt eB Date 12072016 Docicaing tot Upiting of Faen funanty Receipt 71 ‘Shabaee-€i Foundation Donna Hekenbottom PO Box 42852 ‘Chale. Nosh Catlins Repabie (Customer: 847033 earns 4 Phone 443-595-6657 a bla Spc NEXT PAYMENT DUE: 0 Faxgap toes ‘QUE DATE —Janusy 29,2016 stabazeoloundsionBanai.com IntpNnheabazneoundolion com Credit Caniweb Payment | 3009-1137-5667-0624 ison Reform Package “ovat Discount Batence [378000 Thank you for your business!i ‘Donna Hickenbottom service@paypal.com Wednesday, February 10, 2016 &:51 PM william Hatchett ‘Your payment to Shabazz-E! Foundation ke ‘You Sent a payment of $246.95 USD Fob 10,2016 17:8t04 PST to Shabazz-£1 Foundation. Receipt No 10-8667-2668-2672 ‘Holo witiarn Hatchet ‘This charge will appear on your creditcard statement as payment lo PAYPAL Merchant information: Jnstructons to merchant ‘Shabazz-El Foundation ‘None provided “SHABAZZELFO, ‘Shipping information: Shipping method: ‘wit Hatchet! ‘Not pected S816 NWaBTorace cooper eiy, FL 33024 United States eserpion Unitprica aly Amount Making sparta payment? s20s00 1 s20500 | uso USD, Tax saestisn Tatsk ‘521095 USD, [ i Ip Recelpt wo: 3310.8467-2468.0672 Please keep hs receipt urbe or flue colerence. You's need MH you contact |} clstomer sence at Shabaza- Foundaion of PayPal 3 Use PayPal nexttimet ‘1Tooks es if you already ave a Payal account \wmen you shop online. is aster and easier to check out wih PayPal Your financial nforation is securely stove and never sha‘ed with marchants when % 00 ay. i a sai | BS po Sane Sec nme oe SS crept Sen E bvighe @ 2036 PayPal, te. a sii recarves. PayPal located 28 2212 HFS, San Joe, CA BSI ‘fa emait10 oa -ceertscaneaeservice@paypal.com ‘Sunday, January 31, 2016 4:26 PM Wiliam Hatchett Your payment to Shabazz-E1 Foundation ‘You sant a paymant of $195.61 USD aan, 206 13.2640 PST to Shabaz2-El Foundation. i This charge wi appear on your credit card stalernent as payment lo PAYPAL, : i Hello Wiliam Hatchet, ‘Merchant information: Instructions to merchant: t Shabazz-E1 Foune ‘None proved | ssuasazzerro. 4 ‘Shipping information: Shipping mothous Wwitars Matchest Not specied | ‘3816 NW BB Terrance Cooper Ciy, FL 38024 United States Description Uni price aly Amanat Making a partial payment? s10.00 4 sts060 | usb, USD Tec $551 080 Total: $195.51 USD. Receipt wo: 4374-6240-8393-9562 Please keep the receipt number for aur reference, You'll need tif you contact ‘somes serice al Shabazz-£1 Foundation or PayPal Use PayPal next met < Inlooks as if you already havie& PayPal acca : i when you shop online. it's faster and easier o check out with PayPal. Your financial information ie ecurely stored and never shared wih merchanls wen you pay, i hase don't reply to wis eal 8st canfoce the computer tha sent ken you won't gt rEeponse ‘Soyane © 2016 raya, ne. Al igs reserved. PayPal i located #7211 W. Fst St. San Jse, CASSI31. JP cmon 10 wr14se - 69017e2<01476service@paypal com Wednesday, February 10, 2016 6:51 PM willam Hatchet Your payment to Shabazz-€l Foundation z You sent a payment of 5210.95 USD 29,2018 175404 PST ‘ 4 to Shabazz-€1 Foundation. re Neer ETE [Holi witam Hatchet, |) This charge wil appear on your eestcaidstalemen as payment io PAYPAL i r ‘Morchant information: Anstructions to merchant: |, Shabare-E1 Foundation None provided 2 [ “SHABAZZELEO, “Shipping information: ‘Shipping method: ‘lta Hotchett Not spectiad ‘3816 NW aBTerrace cooper cy, FL 23024 Unted States Description Unitprica Gly Amount ‘Making a pata payment? $208.00 1 $205.00 usp usb, Tax: $6.98 U80 Yolal: $210.98 USD Receipt No: 3310-8467-2468-3672 Please kaop his receipt number for future reference. You need iif you contact customer service at Shabaz2-El Foundslion or PayPal. Use PayPal next te! i looks 38 if you steady nave a Paya account & When you shop online. i's faster ane easier to check oud with PayPal. Your ' Financial informations securely stored and never snared with merenants wien you pay. ase do ely fo hi email 1 ust confuse the computer that zene and you won't ge a espns. lewignt © 2016 Payal, toc. hts serve. PayPal is octet 223% H,Frk Sty Sam se, CA 35134. Sea9630‘Donna Hickenbottom, service@paypal.com Wednesday, February 10, 2016 6:51 PM wlan Hatchett Your payment to Shabazz-El Foundation ‘You sent a payment of $210.95 USD Feb 10,2018 17:51:04 PST . to Shabsz2-El Foundation. Receipt is 310-8467 2488-9672 Helo witlam Hatchet “Ths ‘charge wil appear on your creditcard statements payment lo PAYPAL Marchant information: Instructions to merchant ‘Shabazz! Foundation ‘None provided “SHABAZZELFO. ‘Shipping information: ‘Shipping method: ‘tam Hatchet Not spectiod 3816 NW E8Tonace cooper eiy, FL 33024 Unie Staiee Description Unit price aly Amount Moking a arta payment? $205.00 1 $2050 usp ‘USD, Tak $5.88 Uso ‘Yoral: $21098USD Receipt Mo: 3310-6467-2468-9672 Please keep tis receipt number for future reference. You'l need it you contact custeenr serie al Shabazz-€l Foundation of PayPa, Use PayPal next time! ‘kooks a5 if you aiready have a PayPat account, when you shop onina, its faster and easier to check oul with PayPal. Your financial infomation is securely stored and never shaved with merchants wiven you pay“EXHIBIT B.”AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH, COMES NOW, the Affiant/Grantor/CEO/Settlor/Holder-in-due-course/General Executor/Beneficiary/Sole-shareholder/Secured Party Creditor/Authorized Representative/Private Individual, Hatchett, William, in Propria Persona (my own proper self), formerly known as the person/trust/estate/corporation, WILLIAM HATCHETT, is a Noble of the Washitaw Nation of Muurs (Moors), better known as, “Uaxashaktun de Dugdahmoundyah,” also known as, “Amurru Washitaw de Dugdahmoundyah,” which is an off branch of the Kushite Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the Songhai Empire, which later became the Al-Moroccan Empire; to wit: North, South, Central America, and including the adjoining Islands; upon his inherited Nobility, and upon his private Aboriginal/Indigenous, “In Full Life,” status and full commercial liability, I, Amarii Ali Bey, being duly affirmed under Consanguine Unity; pledge my national, political, and spiritual allegiance to my Moabite/Moorish Nation; being the archaic Aboriginals/Indigenes of Amexem/Amerw/Amurrw/Al-Morocco/Amaru-Ka/Amen-Ra-Ka (the Americas), standing squarely affirmed upon my Oath to the ‘Five Grounds of Light’ - Love, Truth, Peace, Freedom, and Justice; deposes as follows under oath:AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH, STATE OF Florida SS: AFFIDAVIT COUNTY OF Broward 1, William, Hatchett, being first duly swom, on oath deposes and says: (1.)That I am the affiant herein; (2.) The Affiant states that he is over the mature age of 18 and is not a minor and therefore is capable of conducting his own business affairs; (3.) That I am domiciled in County of Broward, state of Florida; (4.) That I have read the document attached hereto as, “Affidavit of Truth,” and I understand and know the contents thereof; (5.) That I have read this affidavit and knows the contents hereof; (6.)That this affidavit is true to the best of my knowlegge and belief. WILLIAM HATCHETT, ESTATE Office of the Executor, General Post Office, 3816 NW 88 Terrace Cooper City, [Non-domestic] FL [zip exempt]. ‘Swom to and subscribed befiy ( 2 this /Padairse OP 2016. COMMISSION #PFRREOAE: ‘em neo coNTaR 0 Notary Public At My Commission expires:e e ; AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH. “Indeed, no more than affidavits is necessary to make a prima facie case.” (See United States v. Kis, 658 F. 2™ 526, 536 (7" Cir. 1981): Cert Denied, 50 U.S.L.W. 2169; S. Ct. March 22, 1982,). (1.) I, Hatehett, William, formerly known as the person identified in the attached Birth Certificate/Certificate of Title, WILLIAM HATCHETT, states that he is familiar with the facts recited stating that the party named in said Birth Certificate is the same party as one of the owners named in the said Certificate of Title. WHEREFORE, this foregoing Affidavit of Truth serves as constructive public notice that Hatchett, William, formerly known as the person, WILLIAM HATCHETT, is the actual owner/holder of the Birth Certificate of the person known as WILLIAM HATCHETT. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. Thereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing affidavit has been furnished by US Mail to: Broward County Records, Taxes and Treasury Division — Recording Section — Room 114, 115 S. Andrews Ave., Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301; The Broward Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Scott Israel, 2601 W. Broward Blvd., Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312; the Florida Attorney General, Pam Bondi, the Capitol PL-01., Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050; the Florida Department of State, Secretary of the State, R. A. Gary Building, 500 S. Bronough, Tallahassee, FL. 32399- 0250; The Governor of Florida, Rick Scott, 400 S. Monroe Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399; Internal Revenue Service, 600 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106; the Social Security Administration, Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin, 1500 Woodlawn Drive, Baltimore, MD 21241; and The US Department of Justice, the Office of the US Attomey General, Loretta Lynch, 950-Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-001, on this _/ day of 2016. Respecting By Executor: WILLIAM HATCHET, Office of the Executor, General Post Office, 3816 NW 88 Terrace Cooper City, [Non-domestic] FL [zip exempt].oe 15025840-1 6 © United States of America DEPARTMENT OF STATE To all to whom these presents shall come, Greetings: I Certify That the document hereunto annexed is under the Seal of the State(s) of Illinois, and that such Seal(s) is/are entitled to full faith and credit.* ‘For the contents of the annexed document,the Department assumes no responsibility This certificate is not valid if itis removed or altered in any way whatsoever In testimony whereof, I, John F. Kerry, Secretary of State, have ‘,ereunto caused the seal of the Department of State to be affixed and my name subscribed by the Assistant Authentication Officer, of the said Depastment, at the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, this eighth day of April, 2015. Zz Jssued pursuant 19 CHXIV, State of Sept. 15, 1789, 1 Stat 68-69; 22 SecretarY of State USC 2637; 22USC 26314; 3 USC B 301; 28 USC 1733 et. seq: 8 USC y. TS: ROLE 14 Federal es of. Assistarit Authentication Officer, Department of StateState of Mlinois Executive Department UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) ) ss s STATE OF ILLINOIS ) CERTIFICATE OF INCUMBENCY |, JESSE WHITE, Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, certify that DAMON T ARNOLD, M.D. Who signed the foregoing, was at the time of signing same STATE REGISTRAR in the ‘State of linois duly commissioned and qualified to that office and that full faith and credit are due the official attestations. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, | hereto set my hand and cause to be affixed the Great Seal of the State of Illinois. Done ai the City of S) JANUARY 2, 2015 ‘Secretary of State State of IllinoisSTATE OF ILLINOIS ° DepaRuen of PuBLe HEALTH. orsioi or Vita Reeds farce oe un ws rons wit Tesh‘ woe ruin ORIGINAL } STATE OF ILLINOIS s ts th Harter CERTIFICATE OF ‘LIVE BIRTH 7 1263-6 15-1459 ~ Ts oo cotter is) A Sat HHT mois 8 Cony A Sie ‘8 County heap tat amet int erg ee Chicago Heights " hicago Holghts, [OO Oo eRe Tai md een 7 “Tomato or Read ict Nos SS — or oad Dstict No Raa Ha aT Ee Weice SdH (ee © Re oF RED. and Pan Of? St. James Hospital 177 E. 22nd St. Th ra pal or waotan He Sree G Ros RFD and Pon OT TGR Nine hae acy © tit {WA22iam Bury): - Hatchett SEW Mute, Cold Baw Ye Date Chow roo) Bitte pee —ownlwen yep gin wl isli:hOP warch James Shi rae TIO Ap Bolas Te TS TTA onl Cairo, T1linois 7 vs TE Moma Ft eae Narcis =. a a |_27_ven| Memphis, Tennessee Tipe (Seat ; S Chicago Heights, Illinois h-2-63 Dpty- 277 | GE QAGO — ersgsgrty mein a won a covet corte oc ede ih he nts Desa e098 ese T ctl, mn, rth ot ae wee DEC 30 2010 ©.