FAILURE TO DECLARE JURISDICTION, THE FATAL DEFECT

by Charles Miller (3rd party provider)

Consider the effect of presenting this in any state or Federal case early as possible, at any
point as needed, where you are a defendant in a criminal or civil matter. N/A if you are
plaintiff.

This monograph is presented to the People, in particular the Bundy family David, Eddie, others
similarly situated and associates. Not legal advice.

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 (including states) on trial under the courts own
records.

File this under a Submission for Record Challenging Jurisdiction nunc pro tunc.
Also attach the order. Serve all the parties via certified 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.

Simple letter to judge----

Judge _____________
Address, etc

RE: Case# _______________________

Delivered via the clerk via Certified Mail ____________________ or __ personal delivery.

Judge ____________,

I am more than happy to settle this claim if a verified claim exists, or I only can proceed further
once these following issues are fully addressed. In the meantime, I do not consent to proceed, nor
can I recognize or understand your court 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
cohort’s 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 its own Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)
for immediate application, as Letter of Wishes from the Beneficiary to the public trust allegedly
served by 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 I believe you are already aware of it.

Judge _____________________, you and all the court officers you supervise and control, know
and have always known, that to proceed without 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 therefore
your personal act. You and other public servants in your position, 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 thus giving me fair notice.

Judge _____________________, you will either deal with and correct this legal, political TORT
CHARGING DOCUMENT, or you won’t. With all due respect, it is your choice whether you
convict yourself by your own acts or not.

Be advised this presentment is being forwarded to appropriate parties for action as necessary.

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 evidence of 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 clerk’s ledger.

Under a 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 judgment 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 that you Judge ______________________,

personally identify and fully document your complete jurisdiction on record in this public case,
regardless of what stage this case is at, even post conviction.

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 barratrously 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_____________________, I require you to admit or deny
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. If I am clearly incorrect in any or all of these issues, please provide verified
evidence, point by point.

1. The courts records do not identify in any manner whatsoever, the source of authority,
authorizing the court to hold me, I man to account for a claim 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 of 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 People’s government.
10. There is no public document appointing you in any capacity whatsoever, to act as a
federal judicial officer holding constitutional authority.
11. Please account for the fact these items were never presented to the grand jury or the
trial jury (if applicable). Were these authorities presented to the grand jury?

Let’s be real clear here, if not rebutted, I have no choice but to lodge a charging of 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 lawfully 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 or threat of imprisonment. I believe you to
be fair, intelligent, and reasonable man who do the right thing and settle this once and for all.
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 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 already compromised beyond
effectiveness at this point.

1. The United States District Court for the District 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.

__________________________ __________ 2018