So, Eros, are you a 'foreign state'? Seems you could control the NAME, which is itself a legal person, corporate, and as such the NAME is an organ owned by a foreign state (you the natural person), but you are a citizen of a State of the United States, so the confluence of you/the NAME is in fact not 'foreign' under this definition at 28 USC 1603(b)(3). So who exactly is the FSIA really aimed at protecting?

It would seem that (e)8 of the First Judicial Act of 1789 already gives a 'native sovereign' the absolute right to an Article III hearing. The issue is clarified in the last pages of the Silver Bulletin you cited: the state, acting through an Article I court, has no jurisdiction for violation of most Enactments (Municipal laws), as Article I courts administer contract law under rules of the Uniform Commercial Code. Such courts lack constitutional protections, and they bring up serious concerns about separation of powers. That is how we got this Supreme Court ruling: "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 (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)