A UCC-3 Amendment can perfect a security interest in new collateral by modifying an existing UCC-1 Financing Statement. It adds new instruments, property, or assets to the original filing, ensuring the secured party‘s interest is perfected as of the UCC-3 filing date. The amendment eliminates the need for a new UCC-1, provided the original filing is still active. To ensure validity, the UCC-3 must describe the new collateral in detail and be filed promptly with the appropriate authority. This process extends the scope of the original UCC-1, securing the additional assets effectively.
In a meticulously documented and detailed legal action, the Plaintiffs—including ™KEVIN WALKER© ESTATE, ™DONNABELLE MORTEL© ESTATE, ™KEVIN WALKER© IRR TRUST, and ™WG EXPRESS TRUST©—hereinafter collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs," assert their standing as undisputed creditors, holders in due course, and executors of both tangible and intangible assets. The Plaintiffs’ claims are built upon unrebutted affidavits and irrefutable contractual evidence, which stand as truth in commerce and are conclusively binding under res judicata, stare decisis, and collateral estoppel.
When most people think of ZIP Codes™, they imagine a simple five-digit number designed for efficient mail delivery. However, there’s a much darker reality beneath the surface: the ZIP Code™ is actually a trademark. This legal classification holds profound implications about its origin, ownership, and use, exposing how the United States Postal Service (USPS) created and controls it as a proprietary system.
More troublingly, the use of a ZIP Code™ carries far-reaching legal and commercial consequences. By including a ZIP Code™ in an address, individuals unknowingly submit themselves to federal jurisdiction, signaling their participation in a system of federally regulated commerce. Understanding this connection reveals how ZIP Codes™ function not only as logistical tools but also as instruments of control and governance, linking people to a centralized, federally managed structure.
The "legal" definition of a "resident" takes on new significance in this context. In legal terms, a "resident" is not a living man or woman, but a "thing" identified and confined within a specific jurisdiction. By "identifying" as a "resident" through the use of a ZIP Code™, a living man or woman "legally" transforms into a corporate entity—an ens legis—a legal fiction. This shift in "status" by way of contract, strips the man or woman of their Sovereignty, and places them under federal authority, stripping them of their status as a living man or woman and "subjecting" them to the far-reaching control of the government.
In what promises to be a high-stakes and precedent-setting legal battle, ™KEVIN WALKER© ESTATE, and related entities have issued a notice of intent to pursue confirmed claims against multiple defendants, including Rancho California Water District, its officers, trustees, and Does 1-100 inclusive. The claimants affirm an array of serious violations, including fraud, racketeering, conspiracym identity theft, extortion, conspiracy, and deprivation of rights under the color of law. With an intricate framework of legal statutes and principles underpinning the admitted violations and felony crimes (thus the unrebutted affidavits), the lawsuit could set a powerful example of using legal mechanisms to demand accountability.
In the wake of the 2008 housing market crash, Operation Malicious Mortgage emerged as one of the most significant federal efforts to combat rampant mortgage fraud that contributed to the crisis. Spanning from March 1 to June 18, 2008, this operation was a multi-agency response to systemic corruption and fraudulent practices within the mortgage and real estate industries. Led by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the initiative exposed a nationwide epidemic of financial crimes, culminating in 406 defendants charged in 144 separate cases across the United States.
The KEVIN WALKER ESTATE and WALKERNOVA GROUP l have uncovered undeniable fraud, procedural dishonor, and violations of commercial law by Georgia’s Own Credit Union, Quality Loan Service Corporation, Cenlar Federal Savings & Loan, Fidelity National Title Company, and McCarthy & Holthus, LLP. Their verified affidavits and documented evidence confirm the fraud committed and the unlawful attempts to seize property to which these entities have no legal claim. KEVIN WALKER ESTATE is demanding $30 billion in summary judgment, based on fraud, breach of contract, and violations of UCC provisions, contract law, and legal maxims. The facts are clear, and the evidence is unrebutted, demonstrating the fully admitted wrongful actions of these parties.
KEVIN WALKER ESTATE is demanding $30 billion in summary judgment, based on fraud, breach of contract, and violations of UCC provisions, contract law, and legal maxims. The facts are clear, and the evidence is unrebutted, demonstrating the wrongful actions of these parties.
When individuals step into courtrooms, they often lack a full understanding of the legal terrain. One of the most subtle and impactful dynamics at play is how judges guide litigants into pleading "pro se" without informing them of the jurisdictional implications. Many people assume representing themselves is simply a matter of declining legal counsel, but the choice between "pro se" and being "sui juris" or "in propria persona" has profound legal consequences.
Pulling over a man or woman traveling privately in a non-commercial automobile marked "PRIVATE" without lawful cause can constitute a violation of constitutional rights and federal law. When law enforcement applies commercial laws intended for motor vehicles to private automobiles, such actions may cross into criminal conduct and civil liability under state and federal statutes.
When navigating legal systems, understanding the nuanced distinctions between terms like pro se, in propria persona, and sui juris is essential for asserting your rights effectively. These terms are not merely interchangeable phrases for self-representation but carry specific legal implications. While pro se indicates representation without an attorney within the framework of the court’s jurisdiction, in propria persona explicitly reserves natural and common law rights and can challenge jurisdictional overreach. Sui juris further emphasizes full legal capacity and independence, rejecting any imposed legal disabilities. Each status determines how one engages with the court, impacting jurisdictional challenges and the preservation of inherent rights
In the case involving ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© ESTATE and ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© IRR TRUST Plaintiffs, and Defendants, SDCCU and SHEPPARD MULLIN, significant developments have occurred in the wake of a Writ of Mandamus being submitted to Judge Roy K. Altman’s chambers and the Supreme Court of the United States. Several pivotal documents have been added to the official court record, underscoring the plaintiffs’ relentless efforts to re-affirm defendants’ dishonor, default, and willful and intentional non-compliance. However, one crucial document remains conspicuously absent from the record, further complicating the judicial process.
In a controversial move, Judge Roy K. Altman of the Southern District of Florida issued a “Paperless Order Closing and Staying Case” on December 2, 2024. Citing doubts over subject-matter jurisdiction, the order states: "Our review of the [1-1] Removed Complaint strongly suggests that we lack subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. We therefore administratively CLOSE this case, DENY AS MOOT all motions, and STAY all deadlines pending our decision on the question of our subject-matter jurisdiction."While the order purports to address procedural concerns, its broader implications—and the actions (or inactions) of the court—have sparked significant criticism.
In an eye-opening legal battle involving ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© ESTATE and ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© IRR TRUST (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), whom are represented by private attorney Kevin Walker and Steven MacArthur-Brooks, the principles of unrebutted affidavits and their binding nature have taken center stage. This case exposes not only the power of silence and incompetence but also the reckless disregard for legal procedure by the Defendants and "BAR" Attorneys Shannon Peterson and Alejandro Moreno. By their own words Shannon Peterson and Alejandro Moreno and Rylan Little and San Diego County Credit Union claim God’s Law, Natural law, contract law, Trust law, the United States Code, the Uniform Commercial Code, Common law, and/or Naural Law are "meritless" and "baseless" in Southern Florida Court with Judge Roy K. Altman.
Through their actions—and inactions—the Defendants have turned what could have been a simple account setoff, settlement and full satisfaction of an obligation, into a prime example of incompetence, contempt of the law, War against the Constitution, fraud, extortion, coercion, treason, false pretenses, theft, robbery, and now even legal malpractice and dishonor.