Learn about the differences between "Pro Se" and "Pro Per" representation in legal matters, particularly when it comes to trust representation. "Pro Se" refers to representing oneself voluntarily within the court’s jurisdiction, while "Pro Per" allows individuals to assert their personal status and challenge court jurisdiction. This distinction highlights the power of an Affidavit of Power of Attorney In Fact, which grants an Attorney In Fact the authority to represent a trust, bypassing the need for a licensed attorney in public jurisdiction. Understand how these legal roles impact court standing and the ability to assert constitutional and contractual rights
The U.S. financial system underwent a monumental transformation due to the Emergency Banking Act of 1933, House Joint Resolution 192 (HJR 192), and key provisions of Title 31 U.S. Code, including 31 U.S.C. § 3123, § 5118, and § 5103. These legislative acts, combined with the Constructive Expansion Policy established by Congress on March 9, 1933, fundamentally reshaped the nature of currency and debt obligations in the United States. This shift not only dismantled the gold standard but also recognized negotiable instruments—including bills of exchange, bonds, and acceptances—as legal currency.
The concept of citizenship in the United States is more complex than commonly understood. Legal precedents and statutory definitions reveal a critical distinction between a "state Citizen" (also referred to as a "national") and a "citizen of the United States." This article explores this distinction, highlighting key legal authorities, statutory provisions, and judicial opinions to clarify the implications for individuals seeking to understand their legal status and rights
The journey from "American Indian" to "African American" is a deliberate and systematic reclassification rooted in colonial erasure, legal deception, and social manipulation. At the core of this identity theft is the truth that many of the so-called "Black" or "African American" people today are actually the copper-toned indigenous people native to the Americas—true American Indians. These are not descendants of slaves brought solely from Africa but rather the original inhabitants of this land, whose lineage predates Columbus and European colonization.
Through calculated reclassification, these Native Americans were stripped of their birthright, their land, and their identity. The tragedy of this historical theft continues today, as many have unknowingly abandoned their American nationality and ancestral roots to associate themselves with a foreign continent—Africa—an identity that was never theirs to begin with.
This article explores the distinction between a constitutional republic and a corporate fiction-based government, focusing on how taking an oath to a corporate entity rather than the Constitution may shift an official’s allegiance from safeguarding individual rights to upholding statutory law. It delves into the legal implications of swearing an additional oath after already pledging to uphold the Constitution, suggesting this move could turn officials into functionaries of a corporate state rather than true constitutional representatives.
The Riverside Sheriff’s Department is facing a $1 trillion lawsuit, while the California Highway Patrol (CHP) is facing a separate $900 billion lawsuit. Both lawsuits stem from the failure of these agencies to respond to formal legal notices from Kevin Walker, resulting in the admission of guilt for allegations of fraud, racketeering, identity theft, extortion, and conspiracy. These coordinated actions by the Sheriff’s Department and CHP reflect a broader effort to weaponize legal and enforcement systems against citizens, and the lawsuits are seeking both criminal prosecution and civil restitution.
In the American legal system, a fundamental distinction exists between benefits and rights—and understanding this distinction is critical if you aim to assert sovereign status or challenge government authority. At the heart of this issue lies the principle of constitutional estoppel, reinforced by the Ashwander Rules and long-standing doctrines in equity. Simply put: When you accept a government benefit, you forfeit certain rights, including the right to challenge the law that governs that benefit.
Van Ballion (Nigel Turner), a UK-based content creator, and Michael J. Gravlin, an attorney at law behind the channel Law Talks with Mike, are accused by critics of actively undermining the constitutional rights of Americans. Their content spreads misinformation, misrepresents legal concepts, and wages smear campaigns against non-citizen nationals/nationals and state Citizens who assert their lawful rights and expect Constitutional security and protection. Michael Gravlin’s role as an officer of the court raises concerns about ethical violations, as his platform reportedly labels Americans with disparaging terms such as "Sov Cits" to maliciously disprage and undermine their legal advocacy. Van Ballion, despite lacking ties to the U.S. legal system, interferes in American civic discourse through malicious, dispraging, and harmful commentary. The KEVIN WALKER ESTATE is now preparing to sue YouTube, Turner, and Gravlin for malicious defamation, libel, and conspiracy to undermine lawful discourse, conspiracy and racketerring against the people of America. Americans seeking to protect their rights or who have been defamed are encouraged to assert their rights and seek redress.
The Plaintiffs in KEVIN WALKER ESTATE, et al. vs. SIERRA PACIFIC MORTGAGE COMPANY, et al. have delivered an unchallenged demand for One Billion Dollars in default and summary judgment under Rule 56, citing unrebutted affidavits, binding agreements, and procedural dishonor by the Defendants. The Defendants’ silence invokes legal doctrines like stare decisis, res judicata, and collateral estoppel, affirming the Plaintiffs’ entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Supported by UCC §§ 1-103, 2-204, 2-206, and 3-505, this case highlights the power of legal maxims and commercial law in ensuring justice. With no genuine dispute of material fact, the Plaintiffs’ claim remains final and enforceable without a hearing
A Bill of Exchange, governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), serves as legal tender for settling tax obligations and debts. Under 31 U.S.C. § 5103, these instruments, including Bonds and Notes created by U.S. citizens or nationals, are considered United States currency. The IRS is obligated to accept such instruments for payment, and any refusal or failure to return a defective instrument provides grounds for discharging the debt, as outlined in UCC 3-603, 3-311, and 3-601. Additionally, HJR 192 of 1933 (public law 73-10) removes the necessity of paying debts in gold or silver, OR a particular kind of coin or currency, reinforcing the acceptance of other forms of legal tender. This is further supported by 31 U.S.C. § 5118, which affirms that negotiable instruments are valid legal tender.
Judges, contrary to popular belief, are not above the law and can be held personally accountable when they act outside their constitutional authority, violate rights, or engage in misconduct. Through legal principles like the Clearfield Doctrine and statutes such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983, individuals have clear pathways to seek redress. Everything in the "public" is commercial thus those are "commercial" transactions, Congress regulates "interstate commerce," and the statutes and U.C.C. and United States Code are for a corporation, trust, ens legis, person, trust company, individual or similar. Not living men and woman.
In legal proceedings, the importance of an unrebutted affidavit cannot be overstated. When an affidavit is not contested, it holds the power to determine the outcome of a case, often leading to summary judgment. Summary judgment, a legal procedure used to resolve cases without a trial, is granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact. An unrebutted affidavit is a crucial tool in supporting this process, as it provides irrefutable evidence that, if unchallenged, becomes the foundation of the court’s ruling.
In both federal and state legal systems, summary judgment is a mechanism designed to expedite legal proceedings by resolving disputes when no material facts are in dispute. The power of an unrebutted affidavit is intertwined with summary judgment, as it can shift the balance of a case and establish the facts that form the basis for judgment.