265 (1986). Once such a showing has been made, the non-moving party must offer specific facts contradicting those averred by the movant to establish a genuine issue of material fact. Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 888, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990). Discussion In the motion for summary judgment, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff rejected an Offer of Judgment for the amount of relief to which he is entitled. (Doc. 12). Defendant argues that pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this offer renders the claims moot and that the complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to no existing controversy. (Id.) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 68(a)); Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401, 95 S.Ct. 2330, 45 L.Ed.2d 272 (1975) (<HOLDING>); Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337,
holding that article iii requires a live controversy at every stage of litigation holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states holding that the exercise of judicial power under article iii of the united states constitution requires an actual case or controversy holding that taxpayers arguments that he is not subject to the jurisdiction taxation nor regulation of the state that the internal revenue service incorporated lacks authority to exercise the judicial power of the united states that the tax court is unconstitutionally attempting to exercise article iii powers and that jurisdiction over his person has never been affirmatively proven were frivolous holding that the requirement of an actual case or controversy is a jurisdictional prerequisite under the constitution