[COMMISSIONED LAND SURVEYOR, ISLAND SURVEYORS], signatory and creator of the afore-

mentioned "SURVEYORS NOTICE", whom was conducting a survey at, LOT 21 CALABASH BAY. In
fact, picked up said "SURVEYORS NOTICE" having been informed by Adrian M. Levy dba
[COMMISSION LAND SURVEYOR, ISLAND SURVEYORS] that he had sent "SHARON MARTINI" a
notice in the mail.

I, shasha ann bey, in propria persona sui juris, Authorized Representative for SHARON ANN
MARTINI, am in possession of Land, part and parcel of SHARON ANN MARTINI estate at
geographic location "17.8833,-77.73333" Corporate address [LOT 25 CALABASH BAY, ST.
ELIZABETH, JAMAICA], which shares a common boundary with [LOT 21, CALABASH BAY], (not
[LOT 21 OLD WHARF] as written on the disputed "SURVEYORS NOTICE") and separated by a
reserved road from [LOT 20, CALABASH BAY].

According to THE LAND SURVEYORS REGULATIONS, 1971, a "Notice of Survey" is served by a

Commissioned Surveyor to notify one of his intention to conduct a survey on a property to which
one has a common boundary or is separated by a reserved road."

What "parcel of land" does this "SURVEYORS NOTICE" relate to, as I cannot locate legal and
lawful documents referring to that "parcel of land" as "LOT 21 OLD WHARF". Is this merely an
administrative mistake, error and/or oversight? Provide verified evidence for examination. Or,
was it written so, for the purpose of semantic deceit, escheat, hypothecation, identity theft,
criminal fraud, conspiracy to defraud and/or misprision? Answer: Yes ☐ or no ☐ Provide verified
evidence for thorough examination.

I attach for your review, a copy of a signed, stamped, and dated, "Survey & Mapping Division Plan
Checked PE:380936 (Exhibit B) depicting, and/or describing the purported property "LOT 21 OLD
WHARF". Not one refers to said Lot, as "LOT 21 OLD WHARF". Is this administrative error,
mistake, oversight, or is it solely for the purpose of semantic deceit, escheat, hypothecation,
identity theft, criminal fraud, conspiracy to defraud and/or misprision? Answer: Yes ☐ or no ☐
Provide verified evidence for thorough examination.

It is unclear as to whom, and what agency authorized a "SURVEYORS NOTICE" be sent with regard
to "...that parcel of land situate in the parish of St. Elizabeth and known by the name of LOT 21
OLD WHARF..." Is the "SURVEYORS NOTICE" a de facto document? Answer: Yes ☐ or no ☐
Provide verified evidence for thorough examination.

Is the use of "situate" in it's verb or adjective form, for the resultant meanings of each tell
different tales? Is this another administrative, mistake, error and/or oversight? Or, was it used
descriptively for the purpose of semantic deceit, escheat, hypothecation, identity theft, criminal
fraud, conspiracy to defraud and/or misprision? Answer: Yes ☐ or no ☐ Provide verified
evidence for thorough examination.

I note that said "SURVEYORS NOTICE" is addressed to 1) Sharon A. Martini, 2) Tony James c/o
Mandeville Agricultural Complex, 3) Patricia Knecht et al, Jonathon C.E. Mott-Trille, and 4) C.E.O.
St. Elizabeth Municipal Corporation. Pursuant to the LAND SURVEYORS REGULATIONS, 197,
Section 35, clause 7:

(7) The names of all adjoining lands as well as the names and addresses of the owners thereof
(where these are obtainable) shall be written against their proper boundaries on the plan,
together with the volume and folio of any registered title.

Why is this 'SURVEYORS NOTICE" addressed to Patricia Knecht et al, as opposed to Carl Anthony
Thomas et al, when all legal and/or lawful documents, and instruments, up to that time,
pertaining to [LOT 20 CALABASH BAY] - which shares a common boundary with [LOT 21
CALABASH BAY] - list "Carl Anthony Thomas et al" as owner? Is this another administrative,
mistake, error and/or oversight? Or, was it used descriptively for the purpose of semantic deceit,
escheat, hypothecation, identity theft, criminal fraud, conspiracy to defraud and/or misprision?
Answer: Yes ☐ or no ☐ Provide verified evidence for thorough examination.

Again, I ask, is this a de jure instrument, or is it, de facto and used descriptively for the purpose
of semantic deceit, escheat, hypothecation, identity theft, criminal fraud, conspiracy to defraud
and/or misprision? Answer: Yes ☐ or no ☐ Provide verified evidence for thorough examination.

Affidavit Writ in the nature of Discovery - Averment Of Jurisdiction - Quo Warranto MACX Ref: AQW22022022-Newsome
[Page 2 of 11]
 There exists, since October 9, 2017, an active Caveat, specifically — "Caveat No. 2082973 Against
Dealings to Registered Proprietor" (copy attached as Exhibit C), which expressly forbids:

"... forbidding the registration of any change in the proprietorship of or of any dealing
with the land comprised in the Certificate of Title registered at Volume 1103 Folio 762 ..." which
is LOT 21 CALABASH BAY.

The matter has not been resolved and the Caveat No. 2082973 is still active.

Can you provide verified evidence as to why, how, and for what Agency, in what official capacity,
under what Delegation of Authority, "dealings" Surveys, etc. have and are being conducted, with
regard to "the land comprised in the Certificate of Title registered at Volume 1103 Folio 762".
Answer: Yes ☐ or no ☐

Is said land referred to as "LOT 21 OLD WHARF" on the "SURVEYORS NOTICE" dated 27 January,
2022, in error? Is this an administrative mistake, or was this done for the purpose of semantic
deceit, escheat, hypothecation, identity theft, criminal fraud, conspiracy to defraud and/or
misprision? Answer: Yes ☐ or no ☐ Provide verified evidence for thorough examination.

Also provide verified proof that current survey action pertaining to "Volume 1103 Folio 762" "Lot
21" and "Lot 25" Volume 1469 Folio 428, referred to as "LOT 21 OLD WHARF" on the
"SURVEYORS NOTICE" dated 27 January, 2022, are NOT being conducted for the purpose of
semantic deceit, escheat, hypothecation, identity theft, criminal fraud, conspiracy to defraud
and/or misprision? Answer: Yes ☐ or no ☐ Provide verified evidence for thorough examination.

All lawful documents regarding "Volume 1103 Folio 762" "Lot 21" and "Lot 25" Volume 1469
Folio 428 encompassing, "part and parcel of land" of SHARON ANN MARTINI estate do not refer
to "LOT 21 OLD WHARF". Why does the "SURVEYORS NOTICE" dated 27 January, 2022, refer thus
to said parcel of land? Is this a mistake, or was this done for the purpose of semantic deceit,
escheat, hypothecation, identity theft, criminal fraud, conspiracy to defraud and/or misprision?
Answer: Yes ☐ or no ☐ Provide verified evidence for thorough examination.

Within the pages of the aforementioned Caveat No. 2082973, the property in question, is
described as follows:

... PARCEL of land part of CALABASH BAY formerly part of CASSIA PARK known as PIKE PIECE in
the parish of SAINT ELIZABETH being the LOT numbered TWENTY-ONE...

Why does the "SURVEYORS NOTICE" refer to said lot as "LOT 21 OLD WHARF"? I cannot locate
any lawful, and/or legal documentation referring to such Geographical Location. Is this a de jure
document? Or, was it created for the for the purpose of semantic deceit, escheat, hypothecation,
identity theft, criminal fraud, conspiracy to defraud and/or misprision? Answer: Yes ☐ or no ☐
Provide verified evidence for thorough examination.

What Nation's Constitution authorized the documents and activities with regarded to the "LOT
21 OLD WHARF"? From where, whom, what, does your office obtain Delegation of Authority
Order? Is this an attempt at and/or continuation of, transferring, by deception or other
misrepresented means, Land, monies, currencies, finances and other Rights and Properties, from
the SHARON ANN MARTINI estate to persons in or representing a Private Foreign Entity /
Corporation and its Profiting Beneficiaries, Agents, Collectors, et al, acting repugnant to the
Organic Constitution for the Republic? Answer: Yes ☐ or no ☐ Provide verified evidence for
thorough examination.

Under whose agency and Delegation of Authority Order, and/or nation's Constitution, does the
NATIONAL LAND AGENCY, operate? Under which, what, and whose, nation Constitution does the
"NATIONAL LAND AGENCY" obtain it's Delegation of Authority? Is the NATIONAL LAND AGENCY
a Beneficiary, Agent, etc., of a Private Foreign Corporation? Answer: Yes ☐ or no ☐ Provide
verified evidence for thorough examination.

I am unable to find record nor reference of any "THE SURVYORS LAW?" I enclose for your perusal
a copy of "THE LAND SURVEYORS REGULATIONS, 1971, Schedule —downloaded from the
Government of Jamaica, Ministry of Justice website— (Exhibit D). Is this, merely, an

Affidavit Writ in the nature of Discovery - Averment Of Jurisdiction - Quo Warranto MACX Ref: AQW22022022-Newsome
[Page 3 of 11]
 administrative mistake? Or, was it scribed so for the purpose of semantic deceit, escheat,
hypothecation, identity theft, criminal fraud, conspiracy to defraud and/or misprision? Answer:
Yes ☐ or no ☐ Provide verified evidence for thorough examination.

Can you provide me a complete and clear documentation (signed by a natural living person)
exposing, explaining, revealing and disclosing the actual and/or implied existence, relationship or
relevance of said "THE SURVYORS LAW" and by implied association "SURVEYORS NOTICE".
Under which, what, and whose, nation Constitution does this "Law" exist? Provide verified
evidence for thorough examination.

Moorish American Nationals cannot be held to answer Codes, Ordinances, Statutes, Acts, nor
submit to any "Color of Authority" or "Color of Law." Does the [NATIONAL LAND AGENCY] and its
AGENTS / OFFICERS / REPRESENTATIVES / CONTRACTORS, etc., operate under "Color of
Authority" or Color of Law"? ☐Yes ☐ No. Provide verified evidentiary proof to support your
response, for review.

Hagans v Lavine 415 U.S. 533., There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction. Joyce v. U.S.
474 2d 215; The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction have been challenged, it

must be proven. Main v Thiboutot 100. S. Ct 2501 (1980); "Jurisdiction can be challenged at any
time" and "jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided". Basso v Utah
Power and Light Co. 495 F.2d 906, 910.

“Once Challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.”

Stuck v Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751.211,P2d 389

As all government entities and alleged private corporations must be a creature of the organic
American Constitution for the Republic. This is a formal Request and Command for [NATIONAL
LAND AGENCY and Glendon Newsome dba PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD, and all its AGENTS /
OFFICERS / REPRESENTATIVES / CONTRACTORS / EMPLOYEES, etc., to produce for the record, the
physical documented 'Delegation of Authority', as Proof of Jurisdiction, as required by Law, per
Article 3, Section 2 of the United States Republic Constitution.

PUBLIC HAZARD BONDING OF CORPORATE AGENTS All officials are required by federal, state, and
municipal law to provide the name, address and telephone number of their public hazard and
malpractice bonding company and the policy number of the bond and, if required a copy of the
policy describing the bonding coverage of their specific job performance. Failure to provide this
information constitutes corporate and limited liability insurance fraud (15 USC) and is prima facie
evidence and grounds to impose a lien upon the official personally to secure the public oath and
service of office. (18 USC 912).

Whoever, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in
which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, willfully and contrary to
such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true, is guilty
of perjury and shall be fined no more than $2,000.00 or imprisoned not more than five years or
both." (18 U.S.C. 1621).

Whereas, The Law of the Flag...is a rule to the effect that a vessel is a part of the territory of the
nation whose flag, she flies. The term is used to designate the right under which a ship owner,
who sends his vessel into a foreign port, gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts
with the ship master that he intends the Law of that Flag to regulate those contracts, and that
they must either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all." [Rhstrat v.
People, 57 NE 41]

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law." [Yick
Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370 (Undersigned is Sovereign and no court has challenged that
status/standing)]

"Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation
which would abrogate them." [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491]

Affidavit Writ in the nature of Discovery - Averment Of Jurisdiction - Quo Warranto MACX Ref: AQW22022022-Newsome
[Page 4 of 11]
 "...Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of United Sates confirms and strengthens
the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the
constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that
instrument." [Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803)]. After more than 200 years this decision
still stands.

"All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only not human/creators in
accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due
process..." [Rodriques v. Ray Donavan]

"The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy
and statutes are not the law." [Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261]

"If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issues a license and a fee for it, you can
ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity." [Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham
AI. 373 US 262:(1962)]

Title 42 US Code Sec. 1983, Sec 1985, & Sec. 1986: Clearly established the right to sue anyone
who violates your constitutional rights. The Constitution guarantees: he who would unlawfully
jeopardize your property loses property to you, and that's what justice is all about."

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional
Rights." [Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 946 (1973)]

"No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property." Article 17, Universal Declaration of Human
Rights

It is impossible to prove jurisdiction exists absent a substantial nexus with the state, such as
voluntary subscription to license. all jurisdictional facts supporting claim that supposed
jurisdiction exists must appear on the record of the court." Pipe Line v Marathon. 102S. Ct. 3858
quoting Crowell v Benson 883 US 22

"Bills of attainder," as they are technically called, are such special acts of the Legislature as inflict
capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of high offenses, such as treason and
felony, without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. If an act inflicts a
milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a "bill of pains and penalties," but both are
included in the prohibition in the Federal constitution. [Losier v. Sherman, 157 Kan. 153. 138
P.2d 272, 273; State vs. Graves, 352 Mo. 1102, 182 S.W. 2d 46, 54.]

Prohibited activities (c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any
enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to
conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a
pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. RICO. 18 USC 1962

"The State cannot diminish rights of the the people." Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of
Constitutional Rights." Sherar v. Cullen. 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for
obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or
promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or
procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or
anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article,
for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post
office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or
delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing
whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or
receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such
carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered

Affidavit Writ in the nature of Discovery - Averment Of Jurisdiction - Quo Warranto MACX Ref: AQW22022022-Newsome
[Page 5 of 11]
 by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any
benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with,
a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102
of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S..C. 5122), or
affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned
not more than 30 years, or both. 18 U.S. Code § 1341 - Frauds and swindles
Let it be noted for the record, on the record and let the record show, your response to the notice
is required within seven days of acceptance of this notice. Failure to respond / rebut this notice
will automatically constitute a default [Bradbury vs. Thomas, 27. P.2d. 402, 135 Cal. App. 435]
because "Silence" is "Tacit Acquiescence" and can only be equated with fraud where there is a
legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally
misleading, [United States vs. Tweel, 550 P.2d, 297]. Therefore, by your silence upon default
constitute an acknowledgment [Favello vs. Bank of America Nat. Trust & Saving Ass, 24 Cal. App.
2d. 245, 44, P.2d 478, 482, 483] of every word, sentences and paragraphs written within this said
notice as truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the best of my declarant knowledge.

Please send all future correspondences via united states Registered Mail. All correspondences
sent otherwise will not satisfy 'Proper Service' and will be deemed contrary to proper
communications. I am sure that all parties are interested in rebutting and refuting fraud and the
commonly used methods of "Malfeasance" by which such unconstitutional acts have been
commonly committed through "Misrepresentations" and by callous acts of 'Misprision of
Treason" and "Secrete".

Zodiac Constitution by C.M. Bey AA222141 / Library of Congress, Article 2

Since the 12 jurymen of the 50 Union States magna Charta document of White Supremacy and
the nine judges of their Supreme Court were founded upon our Moorish Zodiac 12 Signs,
Mathematical Constitution, the lawmaker have no jurisdiction over the Free Moors, the Beys
and Els, in the inherited land of the Moorish nation, namely: U.S.A., Canada, Central and South
America and the adjoining islands. The Moorish American Nationality and their sir names, Bey
and El, are their inherited birthrights without a legal due process of the lawmakers of the Union
Society, U.S.A. What our Moorish forefathers were, we are today without a doubt or
contradiction, namely, Moorish!

Nothing in this lawful document shall be misconstrued or implied to consent to any jurisdiction
other than my ancestral inherited estate.

Affidavit Writ in the nature of Discovery - Averment Of Jurisdiction - Quo Warranto MACX Ref: AQW22022022-Newsome
[Page 6 of 11]
Affidavit Writ in the nature of Discovery - Averment Of Jurisdiction - Quo Warranto MACX Ref: AQW22022022-Newsome
[Page 7 of 11]
 Exhibit A
SURVEYORS NOTICE:

Affidavit Writ in the nature of Discovery - Averment Of Jurisdiction - Quo Warranto MACX Ref: AQW22022022-Newsome
[Page 9 of 11]
 Exhibit B
SURVEY & MAPPING DIVISION PLAN CHECKED PE:380936

Affidavit Writ in the nature of Discovery - Averment Of Jurisdiction - Quo Warranto MACX Ref: AQW22022022-Newsome
[Page 10 of 11]
 Exhibit C
Notice of Caveat No. 2082973 lodged on the 9th day of October, 2017 by SHARON ANN
MARTINI estate claimed Equitable Interest.

Affidavit Writ in the nature of Discovery - Averment Of Jurisdiction - Quo Warranto MACX Ref: AQW22022022-Newsome
[Page 11 of 11]
 Exhibit D
THE LAND SURVEYORS REGULATIONS, 1971 - NINTH SCHEDULE (REGULATION 40(1))

Affidavit Writ in the nature of Discovery - Averment Of Jurisdiction - Quo Warranto MACX Ref: AQW22022022-Newsome
[Page 12 of 11]