FourWinds10.com - Delivering Truth Around the World
Custom Search

FAILURE TO DECLARE JURISDICTION, THE FATAL DEFECT

Smaller Font Larger Font RSS 2.0

FAILURE TO DECLARE JURISDICTION, THE FATAL DEFECT
by Charles Miller
July 3rd 2018

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