The DOJ has determined that removal restrictions for Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) are unconstitutional, citing Supreme Court precedent in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris informed Senate President Pro Tempore Charles Grassley that the DOJ will no longer defend these restrictions in court. DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle stated that unelected ALJs have exercised unchecked power for too long and must be accountable to the President and the people
A consumer debtor under UCC § 9-102 is a public entity and debt-transmitting utility vehicle, not a sovereign individual. As an ens legis, the consumer functions as a debtor in a system where all transactions are based on debt, per public law and policy. Since the removal of gold-backed currency (HJR-192, 1933), consumers operate within a commercial framework where assets are collateralized, not owned outright. This distinction separates the legal fiction (U.S. citizen) from the living man or woman, reinforcing the commercial nature of all consumer transactions.
The U.S. legal system presumes every man or woman to be a decedent or minor in commerce until they claim their securities under 31 CFR § 363.6, effectively placing their estate under government control. Title 26 U.S.C. §§ 7603, 6903, and 6036 establish that no public servant can act upon an estate without proper fiduciary authorization. This article breaks down how statutes like 31 U.S.C. § 1321 and 26 U.S.C. § 2203 confirm the necessity of asserting one’s legal standing to prevent unlawful interference with an estate. Understanding these laws is crucial for reclaiming control over one’s financial and legal status
The financial and legal system operates on an underlying structure of trusts, often without the knowledge or consent of the individual. From the moment a person is born, various constructive, involuntary, and resulting trusts are created in their name, serving as the foundation for financial transactions, taxation, and legal obligations. This article explores how birth certificates, Social Security numbers, loans, mortgages, deeds, and other financial instruments are all rooted in a system of trusts, which many argue is a form of permissible fraud designed to control assets and labor.
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.
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.