FAILURE TO DECLARE JURISDICTION, THE FATAL DEFECT

by Charles Miller
July 3rd 2018

http://fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/judicial_and_courts/news.php?q=1530805377

One Mans Dream of Justice.

This monograph is presented to the People, in particular the Bundy family David, Eddie, others
similarly situated and associates.

RULE 60 (b) CORRECTION OF MISTAKES ON RECORD DEMAND.

Presenting the below statements to any federal judge under Declaratory Judgement, FRCVP 57,
note 1, places the whole federal court system on trial under the courts own records.
File this under a Submission for Record Challenging Jurisdiction nunc pro tunc. Attach the order.
Serve all the parties via mail. Wait 20 days for your proof of fact to become public record. The fact is
no federal judge in the country can refute or deny even one of your statements, because, each
statement, inclusive, is proved beyond all doubt by public documents available to every American.
Judge , I do not care about nor will I recognize your courts procedures or actions until you prove on
the open public record that jurisdiction over my person is authorized by law from the beginning of
your cohorts attachment of my body. See United States v Kozminski for recognition of your
positions. Also: Note 1.
I submit the Constitution of the United States of America as evidence under Federal Rule of
Evidence 201 (d), (e), (f), to which you pledged fidelity.
This presentment is Moved before the United States under it’s own Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for
immediate application as Letter of Wishes from the Beneficiary to the public trust allegedly served
by Mr. ____________________________ , judge.
Simple application of the terms and conditions of the contract to which you pledged, are personally
bound to execute renders judgment of Dismissal With Prejudice nunc pro tunc mandatory and you
know it.
Judge_____________________, you and all the court officers you supervise and control, know and have
always known, that to proceed with out full and complete jurisdiction is a crime and a TORT.
Once more, you all know and have always known, that to act at any point in any proceeding
allegedly for the United States, when the United States does not have power to act, is your personal
act. You all know you are personally liable for your acts disguised as government acts when
authority to act by the United States is not on record giving me fair notice.
Judge____________________________, you will either deal with this legal, political TORT CHARGING
DOCUMENT, or you won’t. It’s your choice whether you convict yourself by your own acts or not.
Be advised this presentment is being forwarded to appropriate parties for action.
Be advised this presentment will be evidence in federal proceedings in all three branches of
government and will be properly lodged with the United States as a TORT CLAIM, for the purpose of
determining if the U. S. government will stand liable for your acts or not.
Remember judge_________________________________________, both you and the United States can never ever
deny your own records. This is particularly noticed to you because you signed your name as surety
to valid process, and created the trust fund journal for the clerks ledger.
Rule 56 application, newly discovered evidence setting up Rule 12(b)(6)Dismissal with PREJUDICE
for lack of jurisdiction proved by the courts own records, nunc pro tunc day one of case #
____________________ summary judgement is required.
I only recently found out that the United States was never granted powers in the Union States over
the People.
 I am now correcting my mistake of not demanding you judge ___________________________________,
personally identify and fully document your complete jurisdiction on record in this public case.
The reason for my mistake is I relied on supposed highly trained of higher knowledge and duty BAR
attorneys, such as yourself, who mislead me by their malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance. It
appears to me now that these barratrous tortfeasing, pettifogging, shysters grubbing for filthy lucre
at the expense of United States honor, conspired to deny me access to the fundamental law of the
Constitutions both state and national. Now it is up to you to prove me wrong or admit I’m right and
correct the errors.
Rules 8(b)(6), 36 application to Judge________________________________________, Deny or admit the
following statements for JUDGEMENT BY RECORD under rules 57 and 56. See note 2.
A. You know and have always known that you as a federal judge are party to the action against me,
and are bound to the rules the same as any other party in all of the proceedings under your
supervision.
1. The courts record do not identify in any manner whatsoever the source of authority authorizing
the court to hold me to account under any federal statute or code or regulation.
2. There is no power whatsoever identified in Article 1 Section 8, legislative powers, granting
authority to the United States to regulate any Union State citizen.
3. There is no claim on record by any party to your private action against me alleging that I have
any obligations to the United States, contracts with the United States, to which I could be held for
any reason whatsoever to account or could be in breach of.
4. There is no claim on record by any party to your private action against me that I am identified as
subject of or to the United States in any manner whatsoever, particularly it’s legislative
authorities.
5. There is no claim on record by any party to your private action against me authorizing this court
and its officers to refuse, ignore, or circumvent the United States Constitution and its controlling
Bill of Rights, in particular the due process mandate.
6. There is no claim on record by any party to your private action against me exposing that I was
advised fully of the character and limited capacities off this court and it’s officers.
7. There is no claim on record by any party to your private action against me establishing that your
court, United states District Court for the District of _________________________ , judge
_____________________________, is a Constitutionally authorized or constructed judicial power court of
the United States.
8. There is no claim on record by any party to your private action against me that you were ever
appointed to a legitimate Constitutionally authorized court holding judicial power of the United
States.
9. There is no claim or evidence on record by any party to your private action against me providing
any evidence whatsoever that Title 18 United States Code or the Criminal Rules of Procedure
were ever lawfully enacted by Congress or enrolled properly as legitimate law of the Peoples
government.
10. There is no public document appointing you in any capacity whatsoever to act as a federal
judicial officer holding constitutional authority.
Let’s be real clear here, I am charging you with deceptive practices on a federal public record under
a federal case number________________ .

You know as well as I do that you are required to deal with this presentment straight up and cannot
hide behind a judicial office until you establish that you actually serve in a legitimate judicial
capacity and were appointed to a legitimate article 3 court.
Be advised, that your attempt to miss-lead me by other judges statements, will result in me
challenging their legitimate authority and put on open public record the moment They are exposed
in this matter.
What this whole issue comes down to at the moment is an issue between you and me, two men and
nothing more. You caused my body to be attached and now you have to prove publicly that you had
authority to participate in my imprisonment. Until you prove conclusively on public record you had
full and complete documented authority to act upon me, my rights, and my political standing as one
Beneficiary protected by the laws of the United States, you acted on your own!
I look forward to your response on record.
Govern yourself accordingly.
Sign and date and swear to it publicly under a notary or two witnesses.

Note 1: united States v Kozminski, 487 US 931; Held: For purposes of criminal prosecution
under §241 or §1584, the term "involuntary servitude" necessarily means a condition of servitude
in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or
physical injury or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process. This definition
encompasses cases in which the defendant holds the victim in servitude by placing him or her in
fear of such physical restraint or injury or legal coercion. Pp. 487 U. S. 939-953.
(c) The Government's broad construction of "involuntary servitude", which would prohibit the
compulsion of services by any type of speech or intentional conduct that, from the victim's point of
view, either leaves the victim with no tolerable alternative but to serve the defendant or deprives
the victim of the power of choice could not have been intended by Congress. That interpretation
would appear to criminalize a broad range of day-to-day activity; would delegate to prosecutors
and juries the inherently legislative task of determining what type of coercive activities are so
morally reprehensible that they should be punished as crimes; would subject individuals to the risk
of arbitrary or discriminatory prosecution and conviction; and would make the type of coercion
prohibited depend entirely on the victim's state of mind, thereby depriving ordinary people of fair
notice of what is required of them. These defects are not cured by the Government's ambiguous
specific intent requirement. JUSTICE BRENNAN's position that § 1584 prohibits any means of
coercion that actually succeeds in reducing the victim to a condition of servitude resembling that in
which antebellum slaves were held although theoretically narrower than the Government's
interpretation, suffers from the same flaws. JUSTICE STEVENS' conclusion that Congress intended
to delegate to the judiciary the task of defining "involuntary servitude" on a case-by-case basis is
unsupported, and could lead to the arbitrary and unfair imposition of criminal punishment. The
purposes underlying the rule of lenity for interpreting ambiguous statutory provisions are served
by construing §241 and §1584 to prohibit only compulsion of services through physical or legal
coercion. Pp. 487 U. S. 949-952.
NOTE 2: Rule 57. Declaratory Judgment

These rules govern the procedure for obtaining a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. §2201.
Rules 38 and 39 govern a demand for a jury trial. The existence of another adequate remedy does
not preclude a declaratory judgment that is otherwise appropriate. The court may order a speedy
hearing of a declaratory-judgment action.
Notes
(As amended Dec. 29, 1948, eff. Oct. 20, 1949; Apr. 30, 2007, eff. Dec. 1, 2007.)
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1937
The fact that a declaratory judgment may be granted “whether or not further relief is or could be
prayed” indicates that declaratory relief is alternative or cumulative and not exclusive or
extraordinary. A declaratory judgment is appropriate when it will “terminate the controversy”
giving rise to the proceeding. Inasmuch as it often involves only an issue of law on undisputed or
relatively undisputed facts, it operates frequently as a summary proceeding, justifying docketing
the case for early hearing as on a motion, as provided for in California (Code Civ.Proc. (Deering,
1937) §1062a), Michigan (3 Comp.Laws (1929) §13904), and Kentucky (Codes (Carroll, 1932)
Civ.Pract. §639a–3).
The “controversy” must necessarily be “of a justiciable nature, thus excluding an advisory decree
upon a hypothetical state of facts. Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 325,
56 S.Ct. 466, 473, 80 L.Ed. 688, 699 (1936). The existence or nonexistence of any right, duty,
power, liability, privilege, disability, or immunity or of any fact upon which such legal relations
depend, or of a status, may be declared. The petitioner must have a practical interest in the
declaration sought and all parties having an interest therein or adversely affected must be made
parties or be cited. A declaration may not be rendered if a special statutory proceeding has been
provided for the adjudication of some special type of case, but general ordinary or extraordinary
legal remedies, whether regulated by statute or not, are not deemed special statutory proceedings.
When declaratory relief will not be effective in settling the controversy, the court may decline to
grant it. But the fact that another remedy would be equally effective affords no ground for declining
declaratory relief. The demand for relief shall state with precision the declaratory judgment
desired, to which may be joined a demand for coercive relief, cumulatively or in the alternative; but
when coercive relief only is sought but is deemed ungrantable or inappropriate, the court may sua
sponte, if it serves a useful purpose, grant instead a declaration of rights. Hasselbring v. Koepke,
263 Mich. 466, 248 N.W. 869, 93 A.L.R. 1170 (1933). Written instruments, including ordinances
and statutes, may be construed before or after breach at the petition of a properly interested party,
process being served on the private parties or public officials interested. In other respects the
Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act affords a guide to the scope and function of the Federal act.
Compare Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 57 S.Ct. 461 (1937); Nashville,
Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249 (1933); Gully vs Tax Collector v.
Interstate Natural Gas Co., 82 F.(2d) 145 (C.C.A.5th, 1936); Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Plummer,
13 F.Supp. 169 (S.D.Tex., 1935); Borchard, Declaratory Judgments (1934), passim.
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1948 Amendment
The amendment substitutes the present statutory reference.
Committee Notes on Rules—2007 Amendment
The language of Rule 57 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Civil Rules to
make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the
rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only.
Rule 56. Summary Judgment

(a) Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment. A party may move for summary
judgment, identifying each claim or defense — or the part of each claim or defense — on which
summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. The court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion.
(b) Time to File a Motion. Unless a different time is set by local rule or the court orders otherwise, a
party may file a motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the close of all
discovery.
 (c) Procedures.
(1) Supporting Factual Positions. A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed
must support the assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents,
electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for
purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or (B)
showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or
that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.
ORDER
A B C, Citizen of the Union State _________________________ presented a document to me causing me to
review all of my positions and actions. Thus this order.
I am now placed in a very very awkward position.
I have reviewed the allegations of ABC and researched each point to their foundational documents
assigning judicial power to the court I serve and to me.
I have reviewed my own public oath of fidelity and my obligations there to.
I have reviewed the history of the Congressional actions surrounding Title 18 United States Code
and the Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedures.
I have reviewed the record extensively in case number _____________ .
My findings are shocking to me as identified below. I will only address three issues which affect Mr.
ABC directly and provide him the relief I believe he is requesting.
The balance of my findings are being forwarded to various Congressional committees and the
United States Supreme Court. I am not forwarding these Findings to the Department of Justice nor
the FBI who have jurisdiction to investigate because they are compromised beyond effectiveness at
this point.
1. The United States District Court for the District of_____________________ , of is not constructed as an
article 3 court of record nor have any article 3 powers ever been assigned to it. Review of United
States Code itself exposes this fact completely. Congress assigned article 3 powers to limited
courts found in the United States Code Title 28, and in the District of Columbia code.
2. The legislative powers granted to Congress assembled do not grant jurisdiction over any of the
people found in the Union States. The limited authority over people in the states is specifically
and clearly outlined in article 1 section 8 legislative powers. There is no general statement of
authority to hold the people generally subject to federal powers, nor are the people identified as
subject to federal government powers. This is because the people themselves being the source in
authority of all government in the United States, individually do not hold power to regulate their
neighbors in any manner, which means they could not grant powers to regulate their neighbors
to the governments they created. The federal government being a creation of the states, holding
strictly limited powers under the contract Constitution, is a derivative power and ultimately a
servant of the people who created the states. None of the foundational documents, in particular
the states and federal Constitution, are living documents, they are contracts to be strictly
construed. Strict constructionist requires that the Bill of Rights , the thou shall not clauses, in
particular due process, be given full accord in every act taken by the federal government.
3. My failure to document my own sources of authorities to operate a court of the United States
voids the action against Mr. ABC from the beginning, because, it is the most fundamental and
basic tenets of due process to have full notice and opportunity to respond. Mr. ABC did not have
this opportunity.
At the present moment I am in no position to address the full set of issues raised by Mr. ABC.
Currently, it is my belief that no judicial officer of the United States is in the position to deal with
these matters in a forthright manner. I believe we of the professional judiciary have been taken
advantage of and mislead.
I believe that it is in the best interest of the federal judiciary and the United States in general, that
we clean our own house and quickly. Mr. ABC’s reference to the United States versus Kosminsky
lays out the liabilities perfectly.
In order for me to maintain my perceptions of myself that I am an honest American, and honest
government servant, I must now act to correct the errors that have been pointed out and proved to
me.
THEREFORE; BE IT ORDERED:
Case number_____________ in the United States District Court for the District of _________________ , is
dismissed with prejudice from the beginning, date of indictment.
This order is to be construed as finding of fact and conclusion of law fully supporting TORT CLAIM
for false imprisonment. Full findings and supporting documents will be provided to appropriate
agencies.

http://allthatstreaming.com/post/charles-miller/failure-to-declare-jurisdiction-the-fatal-
defect.html