Is this Court, and all public offices, a FOREIGN STATE as defined under FRCP Rule 4(j) and under Title 28— JUDICIARY | AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE?

estions Present For Review The Court lacks subject matter and personal jurisdiction for the reasons below: 1) Is this Court, and all public offices,a FOREIGN STATE as defined under FRCP . Rule 4(j) and under Title 28— JUDICIARY | AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE? The ; Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976 : is a United States law, codified at Title 28 U.S.C. 1330, 1332, 1391, 1441(d) and : 1602-1611, and is being jurisdictionally challenged, and that “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 Statutes at Large? For : i this was passed to remove the people of the United States of America from the federal | citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Chapter (Section I), enacted July 27, 1868. 3) When a magistrate acts without jurisdiction, it is a violation of the judge’s statutory territorial jurisdiction under Title 28 U.S.C. 636(a) as prescribed by Congress? : 4) It is the court’s responsibility to prove it has subject matter jurisdiction, and where a Judge arbitrarily claims the court has . ; jurisdiction, he is violating the defendant’s right to due process of the law. It is, in fact, "the prosecutor’s responsibility to prove, . on the record that jurisdiction exists, and : jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even years later, and even collaterally, ii as in a private administrative process, as was done herein. It is the petitioner’s right to challenge jurisdiction, and it is the prosecutor’s duty to prove it exist. The respondent herein was given the opportunity (multiple times) to the facts of jurisdiction on the administrative record, but was acquiesced by tacit procuration . to the fact that the constitutional and due process violations alleged by the petitioner did, in fact occur, and did, in fact, deprive . the court of the subject matter jurisdiction, which is now the record before the court? 5) That it is not the prosecutor’s duty and obligation to provide ALL of the facts that establish the court’s jurisdiction, and place them upon the record even in a collateral attack against jurisdiction? iii