In a monumental legal development, the Kevin Walker Estate v. Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company case has been removed to federal court and initially assigned to a U.S. Magistrate Judge. However, the Kevin Walker Estate has declined to consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate and formally filed a "Plaintiffs’ Notice of Decline of Consent to Be Heard by a Magistrate Judge and Demand for an Article III Judge." This demand underscores the Plaintiffs’ assertion of their constitutional right to adjudication by a lifetime-appointed federal judge under Article III of the U.S. Constitution
An Article III court provides essential protections in civil contract disputes involving unrebutted affidavits. It ensures due process, enforces uncontested evidence, and offers both legal and equitable remedies. With exclusive equity jurisdiction, these courts can compel performance, issue injunctions, and affirm binding agreements, safeguarding constitutional rights and justice.
This case law summary highlights key legal principles on jurisdiction, standing, and procedural requirements in financial and mortgage-related cases. Courts consistently void judgments rendered without proper jurisdiction and emphasize the need for plaintiffs to demonstrate legal standing. Fraudulent lending practices, including violations of federal regulations, have led to dismissals with prejudice. Corporate overreach by banks is curtailed through rulings that prohibit lending credit and ultra vires contracts. Evidentiary standards stress the sufficiency of affidavits and the duty to disclose information to prevent fraud. Contract principles underscore the nullification of agreements based on illegal consideration
BMW of Florence and BMW of North America face serious assertions from the Brian Victor Charles Estate, including conspiracy, racketeering, and theft. Central to the case are unrebutted affidavits and the alleged unlawful repossession of a vehicle from BMW Florence’s private property.
Defendants Kevin Walker and Donnabelle Mortel, both nationals, secure a victory as a fraudulent unlawful detainer case is dismissed. They now demand and are entitled to at least $1,000,000 in legal costs, compensatory and punitive damages, and sanctions for procedural misconduct and fraud on the court. The case sets a precedent for holding plaintiffs accountable for abuse of the judicial process
according to statutes, codes, and public policy, bills of exchange are legally recognized as currency because they discharge debt obligations in commerce. HJR 192, 31 USC 5118, and 12 USC 412 establish that debt instruments replace gold as legal payment. UCC provisions (3-603, 3-311, and 3-601) confirm that offering a bill of exchange settles debts, even if refused.
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.
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.