No. 11-1005 2 ‘SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, SAAD S, NOAH, Petitioner, ¥. PAUL KAUPAS, Sheriff of Will County, Illinois HILLARY CLINTON, Secretary of State of the United States; JANET NAPOLITANO, Director of Homeland Security of the United States; The Republic of FINLAND; PAT QUINN, the Governor of the State of Illinois, MICHAEL O'LEARY, Warden of Will County Adult Detention Faci LISA MADIGAN, Attomey General of the state of Illinois. Respondents, IN A UNCONSTITUTIONAL INCARCERATION by Sheriff Paul Kaupas under the case of, People of Illinois v. SAAD S. NOAH, Defendant, case No. 10 CF 1042 of Illinois 12" Judicial Circuit Court, County of Will. COURT OF CONVICTION: The Criminal Court of the City of New York Part Apar, County of Queens, case of People of New York v. SAAD NOAH, Defendant, No. 10 QN 64209, filed on November 2, 2010, in the charge of fugitive from Illinois’ justice, filed by New York Port Authority Police. DATE OF CONVICTION: December 13, 2010, New York Governor's Warrant and subsequent January 5, 2011, extradition order in case No. 10 QN 64209, in the charge of fugitive from Illinois’ justice in the charge of eavesdropping of Will County Circuit Court, case No. 10 CF 1042. PLACE OF CONFINEMENT: Will County Adult Detention Facility, 95 South Chicago street, Joliet, Minis 60436, PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS STITIONER IN CUSTODY Pace L CONTENT... A 1___INTROPUCTION.... a uw SI ‘TED. 142 A.___WHETHER NOAH IS AN ALIEN EXCLUDABLE FROM ENTERING THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT AN IMMIGRANT VISA BECAUSE NOAL RENOUNCED HIS USA'S CITIZENSHIP FOR HIS EXPATRIATION WAS VOLUNTARILY AND CONSTITUTIONAL... 10 B___WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WILL COUNTY. ILLINOIS IS ABSENT OF ALL IRISDICTIONS IN THE CHARGE OF EAVESDROPPING (ALL COUNTS) AGAINST NOAH BECAUSE ‘NOAH WAS OUTSIDE THE USA FROM JUNE 2009 UNTIL NOVEMBER 1, 2010, AND THE wage S UNCONSTITUTIONAL... C.___WHETHER NOAH WAS NOT FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE IN THE FEDERAL SENSE CONCERNING THE CHARGE OF EAVESDROPPING (All COUNTS) WHEN HE WAS DETAINED UPON HIS ARRIVALAT JFK N.Y. AIRPORT ON NOVEMBER 1, 2010, AND WAS CHARGED OF BEING FUGITIVE BY NYPAP. AND THE EXTRADITION ORDER OF JANUARY 5.2011 1S oer 10) UNCONSTITUTIONAL......_WHETHER ILLINOIS EAVESDROPPING ACT, 720 ILCS 5/14-1, RNS THE RECORDING VERSATION BY A PARTY ‘TL. CONVERSATION... a 2S E____WHETHER NOAH IS BARRED BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATION ACT 47 USC § 605 FROM RECORDING HIS PHONE CONVERSATION, FROM FINLAND, WITH KAUPAS,AND PUBLISHING. 5 WHETHER A COURT IN THE UNITED STATES WILL TAKE JURISDICTION OF ERE ITIS IED BY FRAUD/PERJURY. OR WHETHER COI ILLEVER PERMIT THE FRAUDULENT USE OF THEIR PROCESS, OR WHETHER THE COURT WILL PROMPTLY INTERFE! ‘TO PREVENT ITS PROCESS FROM BEING MADE THE INSTRUMENT FOR EFFEC THE RAUD, BY SETTING IT ASIDE, AND WHETHER IT CAN EVER BE TOLERATED THAT SUCH .OCESS SHAI EBASED TO UNCONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES, G. WHETHER WILL COUNTY APPLICATION FOR REQUISITION I$ FRAUDULENT REEKED OF PERJURIES, AND WHETHER HAD THE GOVERNOR OF ILLINOIS KNEW THE APPLICATION FOR REQUISITION PRESENT! E HIM WAS FRAUDULENT Ri IF PERJURIES WOULD Hi HAD GRANTED IT IV.__TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... 23 V._ PACTUAL BACKGROUND...... 4 VL__ARGUMENTS. 10 Vi AC IATIONBY NOAH _ oe 6 IV, TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Afroyim v. Rusk 387 US at 253 BURNHAM v SUPERIOR COURT OF CAL., 495 US 604 at 608-09 Certificate of Loss of Nationality (“CLN") CESAR E. SERGE-CORREA, v, PIERSON, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2602, NO. 00 C 474,(US Court of Appeal 7* Cireuit) COREY CRADDOCK, v. MATT HENNESSEE; WILLIAM PUCKETT; JOSH CRIDER; AVERY. 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62523, No, 1:09-cv-14, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Hyatt v. Corkran, 188 US 691; 47 L Ed 657 Kipping ¥. Ill. Dep't of Empl. Sec., 52 Ill. Ct. Cl. 211, 1999 Ill, Ct. Cl. LEXIS 74 (Ct. Cl. 1999). LOPEZ v UNITED STATES, 373 US 427 at 439; People v. Barrow, 133 Ill. 2d 266 People v. DANIEL J. EDWARDS, 195 Ill. 2d 142; 745 N.B.2d 1212; 2001 IIL. LEXIS 7 People v. Herrington, 163 II. 2d 507 at 509-10; 645 N.E.2d 957 People v. Stoudt, 198 IIl.App. 3 124 at 128 (1990) Rathbun v United States, 355 US 107 at 110, 78 S Ct 161. Savorgnan v. United States, 338 US 491, 94 LED 287 at 289-90, (1950) Strickland v, Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674(1984). The Act of March 2, 1907 Title 8 § 17 U.S.C. (8 US.C.A. § 17); UNITED STATES v. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, 330 US 258 at 294.95 USS. Rev. Stat, § 5278 (U.S. Comp Stat. 1901. p. 35% WANZER et al. v. S. EDWARD BRIGHT, 52 Ill. 35Wrona v. Karnuth 14 F. Supp 770 (1936). 28 US.C. § 2241 28 U.S.C. § 2254 BUSCA. § 1481; Federal Communication Act 47 USC § 605. Rev. Stat. 1878 § 1999 U.S.C. Title 8 § 15 (8US.C.A. § 1 US weaties with the United Nations, US treaties with the Republic of FINLAND, and US treaties with the GERMANY, US treaties with the European Union ILLINOIS EAVESDROPPING ACT, 720 ILCS 5/14-1 ef seq. Ulinois Supreme Court Rule 304 (b\(3), United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights DS-4080 form of oath/affirmation of the renunciation of the nationality First Amendment Rights Fourth Amendment Rights Sixth Amendment Rights Eight Amendment Rights Fourteenth Amendment Rights Te peter SAAD S. NOAH COAL) RTRPRESTIRY sore, apse nts, he was oui the United States from on or about June 26, 2009, expatriated in July 2009 in Fintand and was physically outside the USA until November 1, 2010, when he was forcibly refouled from FINLAND to New York's JFK airport and he isthe above Petitioner. and he is personaly familiar with the facts and the laws in his eaae, and has some knowledge in the treaties of the United States herein stated; ‘On September 23, 2011, Illinois Supreme Court denied NOAH'S, pro se Verified Petition for a Writ of Habeas ‘Corpus, and did not refer NOAH'S issue of expatriation to the Immigration and Naturalization orto the Federal Court, denying his supplemental pleading to refer his expatriation issue to the Federal Authorities, without an ‘opinion, and on November 30, 2011, Court denied NOAH'S “Verified Motion to Reconsider” and “Motion for leave to file supplemental pleadings in support of his motion to reconsider”, to reconsider the Sept. 23, 2011, order. [Exhibit A] ‘This case may involve a NOVEL question of law fora NOVEL situation, that the unconstitutional incarceration of NOAH by Respondent, PAUL KAUPAS (“KAUPAS”), is the result of the violations of the Constitution and the laws of the United States as determined by this Honorable Court and United States Districts Courts, and in violation of International treaties of the United States by Respondents, the Honorable Mrs. HILLARY CLINTON (“CLINTON”), and Honorable Ms. JANET NAPOLITANO (“NAPOLITANO”), and by the false pretenses of the complaining witness, KAUPAS, in the charge against NOAH, while he was outside the USA, of eavesdropping (All Counts), EEF occurred, on January 13, 2010, and the false allegations of the Witnesses of Ninos in the November 17, 2010, Application For Requisition (“AFR”): and in violations of the laws of the United States such as but not limited to Federal Communication Act 47 USC § 605; U.S. Rev. Stat. § $278 (U.S, Comp Stat. 1901, p. 3597); Rev. Stat. 1878 § 1999 U.S.C. Title 8 § 15 @US.CA. § 15); the Act of March 2, 1907 Title 8 § 17 US.C. (BUSCA. § 17, 8USC.A. § TART; and treaties of the United States with the United Nations, Republic of FINLAND, and GERMANY, European Union NOAH is in the unconstitutional incarceration by KAUPAS for the violations of the Constitution and the laws of the United States by Federal Government’ officials, such as CLINTON, who should not have allowed NOAH to be refouled to the USA for he is excludable from entering the USA without a visa for NOAH expatriated and no longer a citizen of the USA, and NAPOLITANO should have known that NOAH was physically outside the USA from June 26, 2009 until November 1, 2010, so he was not fugitive in the Federal Sense to be arrested on November |, 2010, inthe charge of eavesdropping (All counts), if ever, occurred on January 13, 2010, at and within Will County, Mlinois, while NOAH was physically outside the USA.5. NOAH, who was physically outside the United States from June 26, 2009, until he was forcibly refouled tothe USA by three agents ofthe Finnish Immigration Service on November 1, 2010, did exercise his Right of Expatriation in July 27, 2009, and thereafter, wile he was in Finland and when he was in GERMANY on June 22, 2010. Nevertheless, NOAH was admitted into the USA by NAPOLITANO as a citizen of the USA on November |, 2010, and was detained, upon the refoulement at N.Y, JFK airport, by NAPOLITANO and arrested bby New York Port Authority Police upon the request of KAUPAS to NAPOLITANO on Novernber 1, 2010, While NOAH is an excludable and deportable alien since his expatriation of July 27, 2009, and thereafter, in Helsinki, Finland, and in GERMANY, European Union. 6 KAUPAS got the unconstitutional custody of NOAH and is incarcerating him since the January 5, 2011, extradition order of New York Court, supra, because Respondent CLINTON violated NOAH'S constitutional right to expatriation, the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and violated the Treaties of the United States, for she did not act upon the laws of the United States as her assigned duties as constitutionally mandated by the Constitution of the United States and by the laws of the United States as determined by this, Honorable Court for CLINTON violated NOAH'S right to expatriation for not issuing NOAH the Certificate of Loss of Nationality ("CLN"), he applied for on or about May 26, 2010, and when he signed the D§-4080 form of oathvaffirmation of the renunciation ofthe nationality ofthe USA before the United States Embassy Diplomats in Helsinki, Finland on or about October 25, 2010. Had CLINTON issued NOAH the CLN, KAUPAS would not have had the opportunity to have the unconstitutional eustody of NOAH, and to proceed under oath in his false pretenses inthe charge of eavesdropping against NOAH (All Counts), against the Constitution and against the laws of the United States as determined by this Honorable Court. That CLINTON'S, violation of NOAH right to expatriation allowed KAUPAS to keep violating the Constitution of the United States, Federal laws and the treaties ofthe United States. atl 7. NOAH, hereby, is presenting his petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 225dand pursuant to U.S. Rev. Stat. § 5278 (U.S. Comp Stat 1901, p. 3597), Rev. Sat, 1878 § 1999US.C. The 89 15 BUSCA. § 15); the Act of March 2, 1907 Title 8 § 17 U.S.C. (USCA. § 17}, 8US.CA.§ 1481; and teats ofthe United States with the United Nations, Republic of FINLAND, and GERMANY, European Union, __ FACT! ACK 8. NOAH was born in BAGHDAD, IRAQ in 1957, entered the USA on a student visa in September 1982 and completed his studies in Aviation Maintenance Technology at Spartan College of Aeronautics, Tulsa, Oklahoma in April 1984, and obtained his license as an Aircraft maintenance Mechanic in the ratings of Airframe and Power plant from the Federal Aviation Administration of the United States Department of Transportation also in 1984 9. In December 1988NOAH became a citizen of the USA by virtue of naturalization; consequently, NOAH lost his IRAQI nationality, because the laws in IRAQ do not allow dual Citizenship. 10. In or about MAY 2009, NOAH obtained a new United States passport issued by CLINTON. 1 On of about June 26. 2009, NOAH clepared from the United States to CANADA. 12. On of about July 26, 2009, NOAH departed CANADA to Helsinki, FINLAND, via FINNAIR, the Finnish Airlines, 13. On or about July 27, 2009, NOAH voluntarily and intentionally expatriated by exercising his const to expatration, when he knowingly and intentionally surrendered the symbol of his USA’S national surrendering his USA'S passport to the Finnish Immigration Service (“FIS") upon his arrival at Hel Airport, and applied for asylum pursuant to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights Articles 13, and 15, as an immigrant for residency and for the nationality of Finland as a refugee and became a subject to the government of Finland owing allegiance to Finland; and renounced his USA'S nationality for his intentional and permanent relinquishing his USA'S nationality. 14, Furthermore, NOAH voluntarily renounced his USA’S citizenship in Finland before the Finnish Immigration Services officials with all the intention of expatriation and permanently relinquishing his USA'S citizenship for the enjoyment ofthe life, the liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, NOAH became a subject to the government of Finland, subject to the Constitution and the laws of Finland, NOAH never got hold of his tional right byUSA’S passport since July 27, 2009. However, on November 1, 2010, NOAH was forcibly refouled from Finland to New York JFK airport, pending the disposition of his appeal of his application for asylum, before the ‘Administrative Supreme Court of Helsinki, in Helsinki, FINLAND, represented by his attorney, Mrs. KIRSI HYTINANTTI of the Asylum LAW OFFICE of KIRS! HYTINANTTI, because CLINTON violated NOAH'S Constitutional right to expatriation for not issuing NOAH the CLN, which NOAH applied for in Helsinki, Finland; therefore, NOAH voluntarily expatriated and became a subject to the Government of Finland as a refugee in Finland, European Uni 15, Also on July 27, 2009 and when he was at the FIS office at Helsinki airporthe officer assigned to NOAH case allowed him to use the office phone and dialed for him, as mandated by the Finnish law, the phone number of the United Nations Higher Commission on Refugees (“UNHCR”) in Stockholm, Sweden, and NOAH talked to the UNHCR representative for an advice on his application for asylum in Finland. The representative advised NOAH to contact thei affiliated legal office in Helsinki, Fintand, the Refugee Advice Center (“RAC"), and while he was at Helsinki Airport NOAH called RAC and obtained an in person appointment to meet with one of the lawyers of the RAC after one week from the date of his arrival at Helsinki, Finland. Therefore, FIS processed NOAH'S application for asylum and issued him a temporary residents visa asa refugee in Finland. NOAH met the lawyer of RAC Mrs. KIRSI HYTINANTTI at the Helsinki, office. 16, From July 27, 2009 and as a subject to the government of FINLAND, NOAH was assigned a room with another refugee in the Refugee Reception Center (*RRC”) in the city of METSALA, Helsinki, Finland until September 23, 2009, when NOAH was transferred to the northem city of KEMI, in the state of LAPPI, Finland. NOAH was getting weekly cash allowances from RRC, while he was living at RRC. 17. While NOAH was staying at RRC, MTV3, Helsinki, Finnish TV station reporters visited RRC and requested an English speaking refugee to have a before the camera interview with MTV3 team, of which NOAH had the terview as a citizen of the USA seeking asylum in Finland for the protection of his Human Rights that were violated and denied in the USA in violation of the Constitution of the USA, were he cannot get any protection. NOAH asked during the intr the Fxecntive branch of the Finnish Government or the Judicial is going to ‘decide his case of asylum. Part of the interview, including NOAH'S question, were aired on the following weekend of the interview, on MTV3 channel during a prime time. 18. On September 16, 2009, NOAH posted two responses in response to the former USA'S Secretary of State Ms. Rice, on the website on the government blog of Berkley University in California, of his absolute voluntarily final and non retractable expatriation and his permanent renunciation of his USA'S nationality, for the enjoyment of the life the liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 19. On September 23, 2009 and as a subject to the Government of Finland, the FIS transferred NOAH to the north, 7 7e city of KEMI, LAPPI, were the tourist attraction of the ICE HOTEL is located, close to Sweden just about north ofthe BALKAN Sea. NOAH was also placed under the authority of the Finnish Red Cross (“FRC”) office at 24 OKLAHOLMANKATU, 94700, KEMI, LAPPI. FRC assigned NOAH a room in a furnished apartment at 15 OKLAHOLMANKATU. FRC was paying for the rent and the utilities bills and was paying NOAH about 379.00 Euro a month of cash living assistance as a refugee in Finland, NOAH used to cash the FRC assistance check from FRC bank account at the bank of SAPPI in the downtown city of KEMI. FRC was also paying for NOAH'S ‘weekly taxi fair from his Apartment to downtown city of KEMI and back. 20, From September 23, 2009 until June 2, 2010, NOAH was physically and continuously living at 15 OKLAHOLMANKATU, KEMI, 94700, LAPPI, Finland. 21. On or about January 13, 2010 and while NOAH was physically and personally at and within the City of KEMI, LAPPI, FINLAND, NOAH talked on the phone with KAUPAS asking him to investigate the unconstitutional Default Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage of December 17, 2002, entered against NOAH, which was before this Court, were NOAH was granted two extensions of time to file his petition under Application No. 4A 180, which NOAH initiated at Will County Circuit Court under case No, 02 D 1152. talked to KAUPAS to investigate the frauds, periuries, and forgery by NOAH'S wife's lawyer, Sandra R. Clark, and judge Allen James Jeffery and to find the infamous forged two non existing agreements of “Joint Parenting Agreement” and “Marital Settlement Agreement” that were, according to the docket sheet of the case of SAAD NOAH v. KHAWLA NOAH etal, No. 02 D 1152, allegedly, presented and incorporated into the judgment for disolution of the marriage, before judge O'Leary. NOAH have seen no agreement, signed no agreement, nor had any knowledge of any of the alleged agreements until he saw the docket sheet of the certified copy of the record of his2, 24, 25. 27. 28, dissolution of his marriage, case No. 02 D 1152. KAUPAS promised to look into the case and e-mail scanned copies ofthe agreements and to find out, where did judge Allen James Jeffery meet attomey Sandra R. Clark (Clark) in their unconstitutional ex-parte meeting, and based on what section of the law judge Allen made the Lnconstitutional default order granting Sandra's fraudulent with perjury motion forthe entry of default against NOAH, in NOAH'S dissolution of marriage case, that judge Allen unconstitutionally sua sponte stricken about five motions of NOAH and granted Clark's fraudulent motion for the entry of default, which Clark admitted that her motion for the entry of default is fraudulent for her failure to file a reply to NOAH motion to strike Clark's motion for the entry of default for being fraudulent, while judge Allen was absent of all jurisdictions and was never assigned tothe case No. 02 D L152, and all NOAH'S motions stand admitted for Clark filed no response to NOAH'S stricken motions by judge Allen. ‘On oF about January 28, 2010, NOAH had his first full day interview before the FIS officer, Mrs, SOILA KARANIAN (“KARANIAN *) in the city of KUHMO. FRC paid for the train and bus fair to and from KUHMO. During the interview, NOAH voluntarily, knowingly, and formally signed an oath/affirmation of renunciation of his USA'S nationality before the FIS officer, KARANIAN. NOAH was represented by one of the RAC lawyers Ms. RITVA (“RITVA *) from the RAC office of OULU, Finland for NOAH was transferred to KEMI far from Helsinki. Finnish government pays forthe legal fees of the refugees’ representations by the lawyers in Finland, On or about March 7, 2010, NOAH had another full day interview with FIS accompanied and represented by attorney, RITVA as in the first interview, and again NOAH denounced his USA'S nationality, Few days after the second full day interview, FIS officer KARANIAN, faxed NOAH a latter via FRC office in KEM! asking him if he received any document shows that he is not a citizen of the USA any more. Therefore, on March 22, 2010, NOAH voluntarily executed a DECLARATION of his OATH/AFFIRMATION OF RENUNCIATION of his USA’S nationality (“DECLARATION”) and formally signed the DECLARATION before the official Notary Public of the Finnish Registrar office in downtown city of KEMI for NOAHS. knowing, intentional and voluntary and absolute expatration and renunciation and relinquishing his USA'S nationality for the enjoyment of the life, the liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [Exhil NOAH had a video of himself reading the DECLARATION alive audio and video and showing the stamp of the Finnish Notary Public and his signature in the DECLARATION before the camera and it ison youtube with the title of “See S: formally reno. US citizenship for his life, liberty and pursue of happiness.” With the following link hitpy/ww,youtube.com/watch?v=z_ ARI-OmlOQ , which was watched by close to seven hundreds and more so far, by people from all over the world . NOAH sent a scanned copy of DECLARATION and the link of the video “See Sand Noah formally renounces his US citizens is life, liberty and pursue of happiness.” with the following link Lhwwww.voutube,com/watch?v=z_ARI-Om|0Q , tothe e-mail of the citizen services of the Embassy of the USA in Helsinki, Finland asking for the issuing of a “CLN". NOAH also sent the link to all the world’s Countries’ governments who has an Embassy in the United Nations Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. Also on March 22, 2010, NOAH miet with his lawyer, RITVA of RAC in her office in the city of OULU, with an interpreter, and they went through the transcript ofthe two days interviews before FIS and delivered to RITVA an original copy of the DECLARATION with a DVD of documents of more than one (I) GEGA bite of legal documents from the USA'S, Illinois and federal Courts and letters to Illinois govemment officials concerning NOAH'S legal proceedings in the USA in support of his asylum application in Finland. FRC paid all NOAH'S. trains and buses travel expenses to and from KUHMO and to and from OULU. ‘On May 20, 2010 and while NOAH was physically outside the USA as a documented refugee in Finland, European Union since July 27, 2009, KAUPAS wrongfully and based on his false pretenses signed a three ‘Counts charge of eavesdropping against NOAH [Exhibit C and C1), and falsely alleging under oath that: “On or about January 13, 2010, at and within Will County, Ilinois, SAAD NOAH a male person, committed the offense of: eavesdropping (Class 4 Felony)...” “OATH, the under signed being duly sworn under oath ‘says thatthe forgoing is true. Signed by Paul Kaupas” Subscribed and sworn before me 20 day of May, 2010, Jerald Kinney, Judge” KAUPAS signed his complaint before the Chief Judge of Will County Circuit Court, while NOAH was still, Physically outside the USA in Finland, European Union. KAUPAS charge does not stand in any civilized Court29. 30. 3 32 33. 34. 35, 36. 37. 38, 39. of law for it is based upon his frauds and perjuries, and in violation of the laws of the state of Illinois as determined by the Supreme Court of Illinois, and in violation ofthe laws of the USA as determined by this Court. KAUPAS alleges, in his complaint, that on January 13, 2010, NOAH was physieally at and within Will County, when NOAH taiked to him on the phone. Also on May 20, 2010, KAUPAS' three Counts charge of eavesdropping was assigned case No. 10 CF 1042 and warrant of arrest [Exhibit D] was issued by Will County Judge, Warrant states in part “whereas A complaint was presented to the Court charging that the offense of eavesdropping (3 Counts) has been committed, and it appears that SAAD S. NOAH committed the offense”... “As a condition of the defendant's bond, the defendant shall have no contact with the victims) in the case”.. “Bail is specified in the amount of $300,000 -10% issued at Joliet Will County, tlinois this 20" day of May 2010 A.D." PD NAMEIC/R.# WCSD#100503005776" ‘The Warrant of arest is of Will County Circuit Court is unconstitutional and also the bond is unconstitutional and in violation of the Eight Amendment Rights of the Constitution for the Court is absent of all jurisdictions. ‘On May 27, 2010, NOAH sent a registered mail o the Embassy of the USA in Helsinki, Finland, consisting of his application for CLN along with an original copy of the DECLARATION of March 22, 2010, and a signed form of DS-4080, of which NOAH received no response yet. See evidence in videos, 5/911 Pt. 116, 117 on wovw.voutube,com/ i! a ‘Also on May 27, 2010, NOAH phoned the Embassy of the USA in Helsinki, Finland and talked to a male person who identified himself as a Diplomat of the Embassy, whom NOAH discussed the subject of his registered mail the application for CLN. The Diplomat stated to NOAH that it could take up to (2) two months to get the CLN. NOAH received no response yet. (On June 2, 2010, NOAH left Finland, while @ waiting the issuing of the CLN and the disposition of his timely appeal of the denial of his July 27, 2009, application for asylum by FIS on June 2, 2010, before the Administrative Appellate Court of Helsinki, represented by his attomey Mrs, KIRS! HYTINANTTI. ‘On or about June 6, 2010, NOAH faxed and caused to be filed by fax his complaint of NOAH v. FINLAND 2010, inthe European Human Rights Court in France, challenging the discriminatory eight (8) days provision in the Finnish law that a refugee, such as NOAH, has to file his appeal within eight days and must be refouled to his country, while awaiting the disposition of his appeal. ‘On June 22, 2010, NOAH applied for another asylum, this time in GERMANY, as a stateless refugee, a former citizen of the USA, because NOAH expatriated pursuant to the laws of the USA, and a former citizen of IRAQ. AccordinglyNOAH stayed in GERMANY and was living in his studio at 43 Aarster, Village of Habnestatten, Rhine-land Cries, Germany. The Village of Hahnestatten was paying for NOAH'S furnished studio and its utilities bills and paying NOAH a cash assistance of about 190 Euro, and was also paying for the Medical and dental care costs for NOAH. On October 4, 2010, GERMAN Immigration forcibly transfered NOAH back to Helsinki, Finland, on board Lufthansa airlines for his pending appeal of June 2, 2010 in his application for asylum. NOAH'S said appeal ‘was denied; therefore, and while he was in Finland, NOAH filed his second appeal of his application for asylum to the highest Court in Finland in immigration cases, the Administrative Supreme Court of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finand by and through bis Sanne lawyes, Mrs. KIRS! HYTINANTTI On or about October 25, 2010,NOAH signed new DS-4080 form of his oath/affirmation of renunciation of his USA citizenship, before Diplomats of the Embassy of the USA in Helsinki, Finland and asked the Diplomats for his CLN, NOAH did not ask the Diplomats for any help, but to get his constitutional CLN. Also NOAH received no response yet. ‘On or about October 28, 2010, NOAH sent by fax, from the fax line of the RRC of METSALA to CLINTON, inquiring about his application for CLN. NOAH sent the fax through the Embassy of the USA and through the fax number ofthe White House in D.C., of which NOAH also received no response yet. However, on November 1, 2010 and upon his arrival to New York JFK airport by forcible refoulement, NOAH ‘was unconstitutionally detained, committed and charged by New York Port Authority Police (“NYPAP") with ‘one unconstitutional count of being fugitive from Illi ice in the unconstitutional charge of eavesdropping Of the Illinois 12* judicial Circuit Court, Will County, in case No. 10 CF 1042 ‘On November 2, 3010, NOAH was arraigned in The Criminal Court of the City of New York Part Apar, County of Queens, in the case of People of New York v. SAAD NOAH, No. 10 ON 64209, in one Count charge of40. 4 42 43. 4s. 46. 4. 48. fusitive from lines justice, ofthe Will County, Ilinois charge of eavesdropping. NOAH was commited in New York jail of Vernon C. Bain Center (“VCBC"), with the return date of December 2, 2010, feywlet7-F] Re November 17, 2010, Will County Circuit Court and Will County State Attorney, made an Applicaton For Requisition (*AFR") before the Governor of Illinois falsely stating, inter ala, that on January 13,2010, NOAH \was personally present at and within Will County, had an in person meeting with KAUPAS, recorded the ‘Conversation ofthe in person meeting with KAUPAS without KAUPAS’ permission placed the conversetion in a NOnrt etbe and fled to Finland aftr the indiciment of November 4, 2010, and also on November 4, 2010, NOAH was arrested in Kew Gardens, New York! [EXHIBIT- G, On November 18, 2010, NOAH, prose filed his petition for release by a Writ of Habeas Corpus before the New Nork Supreme Court, but the Court did not act upon NOAH'S petition in violation of the First Amendhwene ximent Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment Rights of the Constitution ofthe USA and kept NOAH incarcerated in violation of the Fourth Amendment Rights of the Constitution ofthe USA On December 2, 2010 and in violation of the Sixth Amendment Right ofthe Constitution of the LISA, NOAH \was not allowed to appear in Court to prosceute his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and the Cour med a return order of January 5, 2011, and NOAH was remanded to New York VCBC jail. ‘On December 13, 2010, New York Governor granted Illinois’ Governors Requisition for the arrest and the extradition of NOAH, based on the fraudulent AFR of Will County, withthe condition that New York Court complies withthe requirements of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act andthe laws ofthe State of New York, which New York Court did not comply with the requirements, [EXHIBIT H On January 5, 2011, NOAH appeared in New York Court, but he was denied all his rights in the Constitution of the USA to defend himself according tothe pleadings he filed including but not limited toa notice of appeal for New York Court not granting NOAH'S petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, while the Court entered unconstitutional order extraditing NOAH to the custody of KAUPAS through his agents of Prisoners Transport Agent of America (“PTA”), pursuant to and in violation of the requirements of the New York Govemor's Warrant of December 13.2010. and in violation of the Constitution of the USA and te laws of the USA as determvedl by this Cour. fexatere tu Also on January 5, 2011, outside the Courtroom, NOAH was physically assaulted by about seven (7) New York Correction officers and PTA agent, Mr. Mark, because NOAH wanted to file a notice of appeal appealing the extradition order and file a motion to stay the execution ofthe extradition order pending the disposition of the appeal, and refused to sign the fraudulent release paper of New York Court, which states NOAH has an address in Joliet, Mlinois, while NOAH has no address in Illinois or anywhere in USA: therefore, New York correction officers forcibly got NOAH’S index finger print in their release papers, while he was handeutfed behind hig back. Accordingly, NOAH was transported to the emergency room of Jamaica Hospital, with severe back pain and was not able to move because of the assault ouside the courtroom, were NOAH'S back injury was aggravated and needed an emergency room visit resulted in two accounts # 201188898 and 401188898 owing {he total of about § 206.00. NOAH was denied his constitutional right to fle his notice of appeal as of right On January 12, 2011, and after one week of travel from New York, N.Y. to Jolie llinois, PTA delivered NOAH to KAUPAS at Will County Adult Detention Facility (WCADF), without allowing him even to reclaim personal property at VCBC, which he believes he is deprived for life of his properties. NOAH was classified as a ‘Maximum Security inmate and unconstitutionally incarcerated at maximum security D-Pod day room (2) at WCADF. Therefore, NOAH is inthe unconstitutional incarceration by KAUPAS at WCADF since January 12. On January 13, 2011, NOAH was brought from WCADF and presented before Will County arraignment Court, in the case No. 10 CF 1042, were NOAH objected to the jurisdiction, as in New York Cour, and put the Court on notice that he was outside the USA from June 26, 2009 until November 1, 2010, of which the Judge told NOAH to file a motion. Then NOAH was assigned a Public Defender (PD), who refused to adopt the facts ofthe case that NOAH was outside the USA from June 26, 2009 until November 1, 2010, and refused to file a motion to dismiss the charge of eavesdropping (All Counts), if ever, occurred, forthe lack of jurisdictions. As such the PD did not meet the Standards ofthe minimum effective assistance of counsel ofthis Court in Stickland v, Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct, 2052. 80 L.Ed. 2d 674(1984), wT. Therefore, in April 2011, NOAH moved the Court to relieve the PD from defending NOAH and to allow NOAH to exercise his Sinth Amendment Right and to defend himself, therefore, NOAH proceeded pro se; however, the Court violated each and every and all NOAH'S constitutional Rights to represent himself and kept arguing with NOAH and cutting him off and threaten to find NOAH in contempt of Court for stating the fact in his fled49. 50. SL 92 33, 54, 38, ‘motions that Will County Circuit Court is absent of al jurisdictions in the charge of eavesdropping (All Counts), iftever, occurred; furthermore, the Court tampered with the record ofthe case against NOAH for including false information and suppressing information, inter alia, that NOAH was extradited, thatthe docket sheet of ease No, 10 CE 1042 does not show that NOAH was extradited form New York, and suppressing all the record of the «extradition proceeding of New York Court in case No. 10 QN 64209, while Will County State Attomey refuses to produce or provide NOAH with a copy of the extradition proceedings in violation ofthe Sixth Amendment. Rights of documents production of the Constitution of the USA. NOAH filed many motions before Will County Court white Will County State attorney does not file a response and stands mute in the hearing as in the hearing in NOAH'S verified motion for release on recognizance bond, ‘where there was no meaningful hearing for it was in violation of the due process of the law guaranteed by the ‘ourteenth Amendment Right of the Constitution of the USA, fur Will County Judge Sarah Jones turns the Court as an advocate for Will County State Attorney, who filed no response to NOAH'S verified motion for release on recognizance bond and stood mute, while the Judge was argues, yells and screams at NOAH and not allowing him to present the issues and the facts and the laws of his verified motion(s). NOAH'S filed other motions, but Judge Jones does not allow NOAH to prosecute his motions, and keeps ordering the Court Security to remove NOAH from the courtroom in violation of the First and Sixth Amendments Rights of the USA'S Constitution Furthermore, Judge Jones, in her unprecedented move, ordered the PD to resume representing NOAH under the unconstitutional pretext that NOAH is not fit for trial. Therefore, NOAH boycotted Will County Court and refused to appear in the unconstitutional Court of Will County; accordingly, Judge Jones orders WCADF Emergency Response team (ERT) to forcibly bring NOAH to Court and when NOAH objects tothe Jurisdictions ‘of the Court and tries to defend himself to have a hearing on his motions, Judge Jones orders ERT to remove NOAH from the Court. Such conduct by Judge Jones is very uncivilized, untawful and unconstitutional for it is in violation of the Constitution of the USA and the Amendments therein. Judge Jones is trying to protect the ‘unconstitutional and fraudulently forged AFR of Will County and trying to protect the unconstitutional Default Judgment for dissolution of Marriage of Will County Circuit Court in NOAFPinarringe, supra NOAH also and in open Court filed a verified motions such as but not limited to substitute Judge Jones for prejudice and another motion to vacate Judge Jones’ order to find if NOAH is fit for trial on voidness ground for Judge Jones' motion and order to find if NOAH is fit for trial was based on her own unconstitutional motion, and for Will County Court is absent of all jurisdictions and can make no findings but to dismiss the eavesdropping charge for the lack ofall jurisdictions. In NOAH'S verified motion to vacate the order to find if NOAH is ft for trial, NOAH, also moved to vacate the order denying NOAH'S verified motion for release by recognizance bond, NOAH'S motion to vacate on voidness ground was pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 et seq, of the Civil Procedure of llinois Compiled Status, which Judge Jones sua sponte denied with-out any hearing whatsoever, while Will County State Attorney filed no response and stood mute in Court. ‘On or about June 22, 2011, NOAH filed his petition for release by a Writ of Habeas Corpus with Supreme Court of llinois NOAH w, KAUPAS etal, was docketed with case No. 12816, with the Supplemental pleadings, which the Court denied on November 30, 2011, without an opinion, supra ‘Therefore, on July 8, 2011, NOAH filed his notice of appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304 (b\3), which calls for immediate review/appeal of any order denying or granting the prayer of a motion pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-1401. However, Judge Jones unconstitutionally refuses to recognize illinois Supreme Court Rule [304 (b)(3) and refuses to recognize NOAH'S constitutional right to appeal her denial of his prayer of his 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 verified motion, and on her own unconstitutional motion, Judge Jones did not allow the Clerk of Will County Circuit Court to file NOAH'S notice of appeal with the Appellate Court in violations ofthe First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments Rights of the Constitution of the USA. LEXH-- EJ (On or bout July 15, 2011, NOAH filed another petition for release by a Writ of Habeas Corpus but at Will County Circuit Court and filed subpoenas of record and appearances of witness‘on his behalf as guaranteed by the First, the Sixth and the Fourteenth Amendments Rights ofthe Consftution of the USA, of which Judge Jones does not allow NOAH to prosecute his petition and does not allow NOAH to defend himself at Will County Circuit Court in violation of the Constitution ofthe USA. ‘NOAH is peti Honorable Court to grant his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and declare NOAH an alien excludable from entering the USA without visa and deportable, and declare the extradition order of January 5, 2011, of New York Court inthe charge of fugitive from Illinois’ justice, against NOAH, case No. 10 QN 64209, unconstitutional, null and void forthe lack of al jurisdictions because NOAH was physicallyoutside the United States form June 26, 2009, until November 1, 2010, therefore, NOAH was not fugitive in the federal sense; and NOAH committed no eavesdropping offense; and for the courts! violations of the Constitution of the USA and the laws of the USA as determined by this Court, because NOAH cannot be said to be Fugitive in the Federal Sense, and dismiss the charge of eavesdropping {All Counts) of Will County, Illinois, case No. 10 CF 1042 against NOAH, and declaring the charges unconstitutional, absent of all jurisdictions, null and void, and ordering the release of NOAH from the unconstitutional incarceration by KAUPAS. 56, ON CR ABOUT DECEM GER 13,201 AND ViOLATIEN OF THBLAUIS AND THE QWSTITU TION, V.__ ARGUMENT Sev ewontes tas WHETHER NOAH IS AN ALIEN EXCLUDABLE FROM ENTERING THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT AN IMMIGRANT VISA BECAUSE NOAH RENOUNCED HIS USA’S CITIZENSHIP FOR HIS EXPATRIATION WAS VOLUNTARILY AND CONSTITUTIONAL 1. Right of Expatriation: Revised Statutes. Rev. Stat, 1878, § 1999 U.S.C. Title, 8 § 15 (8 US.C.A. Provides in pertinent part: "Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; ***: Therefore any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Republic." ‘Therefore, NOAH'S Right of expatriations is a constitutional, natural and inherent right, indispensable to NOAH to the enjoyment of his Rights of the life, the liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; therefore, any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officer of the United States such as but not limited to CLINTON, which denied NOAH'S constitutional Right of expatriation, while he was in Finland, European Union after he applied for asylum and residency in Finland with the specific intention of expatriation and relinquishing his USA'S nationality, and, also, by applying for a refugee statutes as a stateless refugee, in GERMANY, and performing other acts of expatriation, such denial of NOAH'S constitutional right by CLINTON must, accordingly, be declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the USA and unconstitutional, and this Honorable Court to order CLINTON to issue NOAH the constitutional Certificate of Loss of Nationality (“CLN”) he applied for. 2. Right of Expatriation: (8 U.S.C.A. § 15) also provides in pertinent part that: [ajnd whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; ‘Therefore and on or about July 27, 2009, when NOAH, who was a citizen of the USA, voluntarily surrendered the symbol of his USA'S nationality, his USA’S passport in Finland and applied for residency in Finland, he became a subject of the foreign State, Finland, owing allegiance to Finland that he shifted his allegiance from the USA to Finland, accordingly, NOAH expatriated and lost his USA'S nationality, and entitled to the CLN according to the Constitution and the laws of the USA. 3. This Court in Savorgnan v. United States, 338 US 491, 94 LED 287 at 289-90, (1950), states: Intentional acquisition of a foreign nationality through naturalization is sufficient for ‘expatriation. Foreign naturalization has long been regarded as the characteristic mode ofexpatriating oneself (Cf. Murray v. The Charming Betsy (US) 2 Cranch 64, 2 L ed 208; 9 Ops Aity Gen 356; 14 Ops Atty Gen 295), and during the 19th century, especially after 1868, the Executive consistently affirmed that Americans who voluntarily secured naturalization in another country lost their native nationality (3 Moore, Digest of Intemational Law §§ 440, 466; Van Dyne, Citizenship of the United States, p. 272). Therefore, NOAH'S intentional application for the acquisition of the Finnish nationality through his application for residency and naturalization is sufficient for expatriation. 4, The Court in Savorgnan v, United States, 338 US 491, 94 LED 287 at 290, (1950) Under interpretations of the 1907 Act an adult's voluntary foreign naturalization effects loss of ‘American nationality, regardless of subjective intent or knowledge of the consequences. See 3 Hackworth, Digest of International Law, § 243, pp 208, 209, 211, 212-214, 215; see also the instances cited in § 244 on "Oaths of Allegiance to Foreign States"; Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 US 299, 60 L ed 297, 36 S Ct 106, Ann Cas 1916E 645; Ex parte Griffin (DC NY) 237 F 445; Reynolds v. Haskins (CA8th) 8 F.2d 473, 45 ALR 759; Bauer v. Clark (CA7th Ind) 161 F.2d 397, cert den 332 US 839, 92 L ed 411, 68 $ Ct 210; United States ex rel. Rojak v. Marshall (DC Pa) 34 F.2d 219; United States ex rel. De Cieco v. Longo (DC Conn) 46 F Supp 170; United States ex rel. Wrona v. Karnuth (DC NY) 14 F Supp 770, ‘Therefore, NOAH did lose his American nationality under the interpretation of the 1907 Act for his voluntariness application for naturalization after he obtains his residency that he applied for in FINLAND, with his subjective intent and knowledge of expatriation and relinquishing his American ativnality. Mey 5. The Court in Savorgnan, 338 US at 498, 94 LED 287 at 293-94 stated, What was the effect upon the petitioner's American citizenship of her applying for and obtaining Italian citizenship? --= ‘The requirements for expatriation under § 2 of the Citizenship Act of 1907 are objective. That section provides that "any American citizen shall be deemed to have expatriated himself when he has been naturalized in any foreign state in conformity with its laws, or when he has taken an oath of allegiance to any foreign state." Jd. at 447-— “Traditionally the United States has supported the right of expatriation as a natural and inherent right of all people, Denial, restriction, impairment or questioning of that right was declared by Congress, in 1868, to be inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this Government. From the beginning, one of the most obvious and effective forms of expatriation has been that of naturalization under the laws of another nation*}d at 497-98, _- The questionin the case of NOAH. What was the effect upon NOAH, who was an American citizensiip ‘of him applying for residency for the intention of obtaining Finnish citizenship? ‘The requirements for expatriation of NOAH under § 2 of the Citizenship Act of 1907 are objective and ~ ‘em, because that section provides that NOAH, who was an American citizen should be deemed to have ‘expatriated himself when he applied to residency with the intention of becoming naturalized in FINLAND in conformity with the Finnish laws, and when he has taken an oath of allegiance to FINLAND as part of his residency application for the purpose of obtaining the Finnish nationality. Furthermore, traditionally the United States has supported NOAH'S right of expatriation as a natural and inherent right as of all people. CLINTON'S denial, restriction, impairment or even questioning of NOAH'S right to expatriation must be declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this uwGovernment by thigCourt as it was declared to be inconsistent with the fundamental inciples of ti the UsA% Government by Congress, in 1868. Moreover, from the beginning, one of the most obvious and effective forms of expatriation in NOAH'S case, as it has been, that of NOAH'S knowing and Pekan r69 hes eae STs Me PRN of iin te 748 Ten 6. The Court in Savorgnan also stated, The requirements for expatriation under § 2 of the Citizenship Act of 1907 (34 Stat 1228) and under §§ 401(a)(b) and 403(a) of the Nationality Act of 1940 (8 USC §§ 801(a}(b) and 803(a)) are objective, the same is true of the requirements for expatriation under §§ 401 (a) and (b) and 403 (a) of the Nationality Act of 1940, See notes 1 and 2. supra. See also Bauer v. Clark, 161 F.2d 397 (CA7th Cir); Reynolds v. Haskins, 8 F.2d 473, 45 ALR 759 (CA8th Cir); United States ex rel. De Cicco v. Longo, 46 F Supp 170 (Conn); United States ex rel. Wrona v. Karnuth, 14 F ‘Supp 770 (WD NY), and hence an American citizen who has performed an overt act which spells expatriation under the wording of the statute, cannot preserve for himself his American citizenship. Therefore, NOAH met the requirements for expatriation under § 2 of the Citizenship Act of 1907 (34 ‘Stat 1228) and under §§ 401(a)(b) and 403(a) of the Nationality Act of 1940. (8 USC §§ 801(a)(b) and 803(a)) are objective, and hence NOAH was an American citizen who has performed an overt act of applying for residency in FINLAND, which spells expatriation under the wording of the statute, cannot preserve for himself his American citizenship. "J. The Court in DAVIS v. Distri 1. Immigration alizati ive, 4 78 at 1179 (1979), the Court stated, “8 US.C. § 1481(a) codifies a long standing though little recognized principle of the United States: the right of expatriation. This principle establishes the libertarian concept that a citizen ‘may voluntarily surrender his citizenship along with the panoply of rights and obligations that attach thereto, Federal statutory law sets forth numerous avenues by which a United States, citizen may voluntarily expatriate himself. | Federal courts require only voluntariness and sometimes intent to uphold the valiaity of the expatriating act.” foot note 1. Each subdivision under 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a) represents a separate and independent process that leads to expatriation. These subdivisions are independently self-executing; a citizen satisfying the provisions of one subsection may be expatriated pursuant to that provision, ‘Therefore, NOAH'S right to expatriation pursuant to 8 U.S.C, § 1481(a) codifies a long standing the principle establishes the libertarian concept that NOAH could and did voluntarily surrender his citizenship, in July 2009, when he surrendered his USA'S passport at Helsinki, FINLAND airport to tie Finnish Immigration Service for the exchange of residency and citizenship in FINLAND with all the intention of relinquishing his USA’S nationality, along with the panoply of rights and obligations that attach thereto as set forth in the Federal statutory law, which sets forth numerous avenues, which NOAH, who was a citizen of the United States utilized to voluntarily expatriate himself. Furthermore, Federal courts require only voluntariness and sometimes intent to uphold the validity of the expatriating act. In the case at bar, NOAH voluntarily and intentionally performed acts of expatriation; therefore, NOAH'S expatriation must be upheld based upon more than one subdivision under 8USC. §.1481(a), which NOAH used and it represents independent and self-executing, separate and independent process that leads to expatriation of NOAH, because NOAH did satisfy the provision(s) of ‘more than one subsection that caused his expatriation pursuant to that provision. piel. Ane 12& ThisCourt in Afroyim v, Rusk, 387 US 253 at 256 (1967) stated, The fundamental issue before this Court here, as it was in Perez, is whether Congress can consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment enact a law stripping an American of his citizenship which he has never voluntarily renounced or given up. Here NOAH has knowingly and intentionally and voluntarily exercised, his 14 Amendment right, of expatriation, when he applied for the FINNISH citizenship and renounced and gave up his American nationality, Av SunRempeneD fys USA'S PASSPORT. 9. ThigCour in Rusk, 387 US 253 at 257 (1967) stated, In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people ***. Our Constitution governs us and we must never forget that our Constitution limits the Government to those powers specifically granted or those that are necessary and proper to carry out the specifically granted ones. The Constitution, of course, grants Congress no express power to strip people of their citizenship, whether in the exercise of the implied power to regulate foreign affairs or in the exercise of any specifically granted power. And even before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, views were expressed in Congress and by this ‘Court that under the Constitution the Government was granted no power, even under its express power to pass a uniform rule of naturalization, to determine what conduct should and should not result in the loss of citizenship. Therefore. NOAH was sovereign. when he was a citizen of the LISA in July 2009, when he was in FINLAND, where he applied for the Finnish citizenship with the specific intention of relinquishing his USA'S citizenship and he did renounce#his USA'S citizenship, and based upon the USA'S Constitution that governs the USA, and the Government must never forget that USA’S Constitution limits the Government to those powers specifically granted that it cannot deny NOAH'S right to expatriation based upon his political opinion or based upon his religion as MOSLIM/MUSLIM or based upon his race as an ARABIC man or based on his national origin that he was born in BAGHDAD, IRAQ or based upon any criteria. Similarly, the Constitution, of course, grants Congress no express power to strip NOAH of his right to expatriation as part of,d@ the right included in his citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment right, whether in the exercise of the implied power of the Government to regulate foreign affairs or in exercise of any specifically granted power. And even before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, views were expressed in Congress and by the Supreme Court of the USA that under the Constitution the Goverment was granted no power, even under its express power to pass a uniform rule of naturalization, to determine what conduct of NOAH should and should not result in the loss of NOAH'S citizenship {@. ThisCourt in Afrovim v, Rusk, 387 US 253 at 261 (1967) stated, "[The naturalized citizen] becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual." ‘Therefore, NOAH, who was a naturalized citizen was a member of the USA'S society. possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing. in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native including NOAH'S right to expatriation. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to abridge 13NOAH'S right to expatriation, The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization and the exercise of this power by NOAH exhausts it, so far as respects NOAH, who voluntarily exercised that power from July 27, 2009, until about October 22, 2010, in Finland. IL. ThéCourt in Afrovim v. Rusk, 387 US 253 at 262 (1967), states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States ...are citizens of the United States..." There is no indication in these words ofa fleeting citizenship, good at the moment itis acquired but subject to destruction by the Government at any time. Rather the Amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it. Once acquired, this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship was not to be shi canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the States, or any other governmental unit." All persons means all persons and must include NOAH, who was naturalized in the United States, was a citizen of the United States before his July 27, 2009 expatriation in Finland, and there is no indication in theses words of a fleeting citizenship, good at the moment it is acquired by NOAH, but subject to destruction by the Government at any time. Rather the Amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it as NOAH voluntarily relinquished it. Once acquired by NOAH, this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship of NOAH was not to be shifted, canceled, or diluted concerning NOAH'S Fourteenth Amendment at the will of the Federal Government, the State of Illinois government, Will County government or any other government unit in the USA. _ 12 ThésCourt in Afrovim, 387 US at 264, states, “He insisted that "inasmuch as the act of expatriation depends almost entirely upon a question of intention on the part of the citizen,” id., at 1801, "the true question is, that not only the right ‘of expatriation, but the whole power of its exercise, rests solely and exclusively in the will of the individual," id., at 1804.19” ‘That inasmuch as the act of expatriation depends almost entirely upon a question of intention on the part of the citizen, NOAH. The truth in NOAH'S case that not only NOAHS right of expatriation, but the whole power of its exercise, rests solely and exclusively in the will of NOAH and NOAH did exercise his right of expatriation and performed many acts of expatriation in FINLAND since he ~ arrived to Helsinki,Finland in July 27, 2009, until he met the USA’S Diplomats in October 2010, in Helsinki, Finland, and signed before them the form DS-4080 specially designed by the Secretary of State of the Oath/A firmation of renunciation of the USA'S citizenship that he signed before. Therefore, NOAH knowingly and intentionally expatriated and relinquished his former USA'S Nationality. 13, Also in Afroyim, 387 US at 265, the Court states, “[ilt isthe individual, who has the right and the only power of expatriation... [I]t belongs and appertains to the citizen and not to the Government; and it is the evidence of his election to ‘exercise his right, and not the power to control either the election or the right itself, which is the legitimate subject matter of legislation. There has been, and there can be, no legislation under ‘our Constitution to control in any manner the right itself." Ibid.” That it is the individual NOAH, who has the right and the only power of expatriation. It belongs and ‘appertains to the citizen NOAH and not to the government; and it is the evidence of NOAH'S election to exercise his right of expatriation, and not the power to control either the election of NOAH or his right to expatriation itself, which isthe legitimate subject matter of legislation, which NOAH voluntarily acted upon. There has been, and there can be, no legislation under the USA'S Constitution ed, "4to control in any manner NOAHS right to expatriate, denounce his USA'S cit izenship, and shift his allegiance, as he did in Finland and Germany. VIL ACTS OF EXPATRIATION BY NOAH 14. Loss of nationality 8 USCS § 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions {a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality C1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; In July 27, 2009, NOAH applied for naturalization in the republic of Finland, when he signed wiee-He signet an application for asylum that is residency with the intention of obtaining naturalization in Finland, upon his arrival in Helsinki airport from Toronto,Canada, for the specific intention of expatriation and renunciation of his USA'S nationality, and made an oath/affirmation of renunciation of his USA'S nationality before the Finnish Immigration Services during his interviews for his application for residency and naturalization, Furthermore, on June 22, 2010, NOAH applied for refugee statute in Germany as a stateless alien for he has denounced his USA'S citizenship in Finland. Therefore, NOAH lost his USA'S nationality 15, Loss of nationality 8 USCS § 1481(a\(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; Also in July 27, 2009 NOAH made an oath/affirmation and formal declaration of allegiance to the Republic of Finland in return for accepting his asylum application as part of his asylum application that includes residency and naturalization in Finland during his interviews before the Finnish Immigration Services. Therefore, NOAH lost his USA’S nationality. 16. Loss of nationality 8 USCS § 1481(a)G3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state ... or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or noncommissioned officer; and the Gouin Roger v. Patokoski, 271 F.2d 858 at 861; 1959 U.S. App, LEXIS 3083, states, [wle do not find any such direct evidence in the record. Furthermore, we do not find in the record any fact or circumstance indicating that under Finnish law appellee had any choice whatsoever as to his serving or not serving in the Finmish Army. On the contrary, we do find that the Finnish Constitution provides that 'For the defense of the fatherland and lawful order of society, every man in Finland is responsible for military service,’ which is a constitutional requirement of universal compulsory military service from ‘every man in Finland’, citizens and non-citizens alike, without discretion or volition on their part ‘every man in Finland’, should include NOAH a foreigner in Finland, who was non-citizen he was like a citizen of Finland, without discretion or volition on NOAH'S part to defend Finland, was subject to the Constitution of Finland to defend in the military if he was called for, for he was under the jurisdiction of Finland. NOAH was without any discretion, to serve as a commissioned or noncommissioned officer in the Finnish army if he was called tor the service. that upon NOAH'S arrival to Helsinki, and when NOAH applied for asylum which includes nationality in Finland with his intention of permanent and non-retractable expatriation and renunciation of his USA'S citizenship without any intention of going back to live in the USA, NOAH gave up his USA’S nationality any knowingly and intentionally ISsurrendered his USA'S passport and never touched sinee; consequently, NOAH became a subject to the Government and the the Constitution of Finland in July 27, 2009, when he signed his application for fesideney and naturalization in Finiand under the constitutional requirement of tniversal compulsory military service from ‘every man in Finland’, would include NOAH as a non-citizen as an applicant man for residency alike as a man citizen of Finland, without discretion ot volition on his part. Therefore knowingly and voluntarily, NOAH subjected himself to the compulsory service in the Finnish Army when and if the Finnish government would order him to serve as a commissioned or not commissioned officer in his specialties or in any duty as assigned and see fit by the Finnish government ‘when he was in Finland. That is alt the more true because NOAH did take an oath of allegiance to Finland as part of his application respecting his voluntariness, willingness, and realness (0 serve in the Finnish Army. Therefore, NOAH did expatriate, because of his act(s) of expatriation when he abandoned his American citizenship and its passport, when he shifted his allegiance to Finland, 17... Furthermore, 8US.C. § 14800 (A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, for which offiee, post. or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required: {In July 27, 2009 and upon his arrival in Finland and signing his application for residency and naturalization, NOAH became illegible to employment in Finland after three (3) months from the date of is July 27, 2009 application and he was ready for employment to serve in the duties of any office and employment under the goverment of Finland and in any political subdivision thereof including any office post or employment were an oath/affirmation and declaration of af allegiance, which he already did, supra, is required as he was in the USA before he shifted his allegiance to Finland. @ 18. 8 U.S.C. § 1481(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in e foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; also See the Court in Jolley v. Immigration, 441 F.2d 1245 at 1247-48 (1971), states, Thereafter, on May 16, 1967, Jolley went before the United States Consul in Toronto and **** Jolley then formally executed an Oath of Renunciation of United States citizenship. Deportation proceedings were commenced against Jolley on March 20, 1968, under Inomigration and Nationality Act § 241(a) (1), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a) (1), | asan alien excludable at the time of entry. Supporting this charge the Government contended that Jolley, having renounced his United States citizenship, was an alien who was excludable because (1) he entered the United States without an immigrant visa, erase — Therefore, NOAH did expatriate and no longer a citizen of the usatn October 2010 when NOAH made a formal renunciation of nationality before two Diplomatie/Consular officers of the United States bassy, in Helsinki, Finland, when he formally executed an Oath of Renunciation of United States Citizenship by signing form DS-4080 of oath/affirmation of renunciation of the USA'S nationality as prescribed by the USA'S Secretary of State; therefore, NOAH did expatriate and no longer a citizen of the USA. Accordingly, NOAH was excludable on November 1, 2010 and deportation proceedings must have been commenced against NOAH on November 1. 2010, under Immigration and Nationality Act § 241(a) (1), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a) (1), as an alien excludable at the time of entry to the USA on November 1. 2010; because NOAH having renounced his United States citizenship, was an alien who was excludable because (1) he entered the United States without an immigrant visa or any visa, and must be deported back to Finland. 1619, Aisoin olf at 1248 the Court sates, Anearing was held before a Special Inquiry Officer pursuant Immigration and Nationality ‘Act § 24946), BUSCA, § 1252(b). That offier found that petitioner was an alien exeludable foreniering the country without an immigrant visar** Poltionst We ordered to depart ror Gntarify within 90 days or be deported to Canada. Jolley then appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals pursuant to 8 C-ER. § 242.21. challenging the findings of alienage and of aarnaerpility. The Board, following oral argument affirmed the deci and order of the Special Inquiry Officer. Jolley now petitions for review in this court under Immigration and Nationality Act § 106(a), 8 U.S.C.A, § 1105a.4 ‘As in Jolfy a hearing must be held before & Federal Judge or a Special Inquiry Officer concerning NOAH'S alienage and forced and wrongful entry to the USA by Homeland Security pursuant to Immigration and ‘Nationality Act § 242(b), 8 US.C.A. § 1252(b). Because NOAH is an alien excludable for entering the country without an immigrant visa, and NOAH must be deported to Finland where he knowingly, intentional and voluntarily expatriated. NOAH'S alienage and ‘excludability is very clearly apparent from the acts of expatriation NOAH performed, while in Finland since July 2009,and there js no reason whatsoever to depart from the laws ‘of deportation in the case of ‘NOAH based upon his religion as Moslim/Muslim,or based upon his national origin an Arab, who was. bom in BAGHDAD, IRAQzor for any other discriminatory reason(s). 2OQ The Court in Davis v. Disuict Director Immigration & Naturalization Service, 481 F. Su 1178 at 1179 (1979. ), stated, “The petitioner executed the oath in conformity with then Section 401(f) of the Nationality Act. Now codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(S), this section allows a Halt ‘born American to actonarly renounce United States citizenship. The statute reads (Pe Se today as in 1948: ta) a person who is a national ofthe United States whethet by birth or naturalization, shall (2) «sia Patonality by (6) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or wo ar officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State -. ‘As in Davis, NOAH executed the oath/afirmation of renunciation of his former USA'S nationality in A Memity with 8 U.S.C. § 1481(2)(5), this section allows NOAH voluntarily renounce his former co oe iizenship and lose his nationality, when he voluntarily made the formal renunciation of Haafermer USA'S nationality before a diplomaticleonsular officers oe ‘United States Embassy in uGinkl Finland, when he executed the from DS-4080, in October "2010, in a form prescribed by the Sceretary of State; therefore, NOAH has expatrated and no longer @ ize of the USA and must be deported back to Finland. 24, The Court in Wrona Karnuth,14 F, Supp. 770 at 771 (WD N.Y. 1963). states, Expatriation is "the voluntary act of abandoning one's country and becoming the citizen or subject of another Bouviers Law Dictionary (unabridged) vol. 1, 3d Revision; 11 Corpus Juris, § 18, p. 784. NOAH knowingly and voluntarily abandoned his former USA'S citizenship and applied for the Citizenship of Finland as provided by the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights 7— Article 13, 14, and 15, Finnish Constitution, and the USA'S law, and became lne-beeame a subject to the Finnish Government in July 27, 2009, when he surrendered his USA'S passport, the symbol of his former USA'S citizenship, in the return for the Finnish residency and citizenship. 22. Also the Court in Wrona,14 F. Supp at 771, states, The right of expatriation is generally recognized through the civilized world. It is recognized in this country by statute, Rev.Stat.1878, § 1999, U.S.C. title 8, § 15 (8 U.S.C.A. § 15) Therefore, NOAH'S right of expatriation is generally recognized through the civilized world, as in Finland, And it is recognized in the USA by statute. Rev.Stat.1878, § 1999, U.S.C. title 8, § 15 (8 ULS.C.A. § 15) and there must be no discrimination of any kind against NOAH by any USA'S government's official to deprive NOAH of his right to expatriate, because NOAH'S expatriation is constitutional and in conformity with the published civilized laws of the USA. 23. Also in Wrona,at 771, the Court states, ‘The law states that this is a natural right. Congress bas the power to say what act shall expatriate a citizen. Ex parte Fung Sing (D.C.) 6 F.2d 670. A citizen is free to throw off his allegiance. United States v. Howe (D.C.) 231 F. 546; Edwards v. United States (C.C.A.) 7 F.2d 357. In NOAH'S case the present law states that NOAH'S right to expatriation and throwing off his allegiance is a natural right of NOAH. And Accordingly, NOAH is an alien excludable for entering the united states without an immigrant visa because NOAH renounced his USA'S citizenship and becauce his expatriation was voluntarily and constitutional. 24, This Court in Afrovim v. Rusk,387 US at 261, slates, The bill was finally defeated. 14 It is in this setting that six years later, in Osborn v Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat 738, 827, 6 L ed 204, 225, this Court, speaking through Chief Justice Marshall, declared in what appears to be a mature and well-considered dictum that Congress, ‘once a person becomes a citizen, cannot deprive him of that status: "[The naturalized citizen] becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual.” NOAH who was a naturalized citizen of the USA was a member of the society, possessing all the rights ‘ofa native citizen and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress or any USA'S officials to abridge those rights. The Simple power of the the national legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual NOAH; therefore, there should be no discriminatory treatment against NOAH that would cause him losing his right to expatriation, while he is excludable from entering the USA and must be deported back to Finland or Germany were he expatriated and having applications for asylum, ‘Therefore, NOAH has expatriated by performing many knowing and intentional and voluntary acts of expatriation in Finland and Germany -forpeememently and he is no longer a citizen of the USA since July 27, 2009, Accordingly, NOAH is an alien excludable for entering the United States without an immigrant visa because NOAH renounced his USA'S citizenship, because his expatriation was voluntarily and constitutional Ae 18