In a case centered on allegations of breach of contract, fraud, dishonor, and related wrongs, plaintiffs ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© ESTATE and ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© IRR TRUST have demanded judicial intervention and mandamus relief with the Supreme Court of the United States. The plaintiffs assert that the federal district court’s administrative closure of their case due to doubts over subject matter jurisdiction leaves the Supreme Court as the only appropriate venue for resolving the matter.
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.
In a decisive move to hold the Defendants accountable for their ongoing misconduct and failure to comply with court orders, the Plaintiffs have filed a "SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIRMATION OF RECORD, NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS’ CONTINUED DISHONOR, DEFAULT, AND WILLFUL NONCOMPLIANCE, AND REQUEST [DEMAND] FOR SANCTIONS, SUMMARY JUDGEMENT, AND RELIEF" in the ongoing litigation before Judge Roy K. Altman. This filing underscores the Plaintiffs’ determination to secure justice and highlights the Defendants’ blatant disregard for the legal process, affirming the legal basis for sanctions, default judgment, and summary judgment in the Plaintiffs’ favor.
The intersection of law, contracts, and public administration reveals a vast framework where the government can exercise control over individuals, often under the guise of legality. By leveraging tools like propaganda, social security numbers (SSNs), and implied agreements, the government establishes a framework of public compliance while presenting an illusion of choice. This system is designed to manage public obligations, regulate access to benefits, and ensure participation in federal programs. To understand how this operates, one must examine the roles of propaganda, coercive tactics, contracts, and the critical significance of the SSN.
When a judge takes an unreasonably long time to decide a case, there are numerous actions available to address the situation, including some uncommon or unconventional strategies. These options range from standard procedural remedies to extraordinary measures, depending on the extent of the delay and the governing jurisdiction. The following is a detailed list of potential solutions
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and equity law offer separate frameworks for addressing disputes and enforcing obligations. While equity law emphasizes fairness and adaptability, often intervening when rigid legal rules result in inequitable outcomes, the UCC provides structure and consistency in commercial transactions, integrating equitable principles to maintain fairness in its enforcement. This discussion delves into how the UCC incorporates equity, evaluates the advantages and limitations of each framework, and highlights key sections such as UCC §§ 1-103, 2-202, 2-203, 2-204, 2-206, 2-302, 3-303, 3-311, 3-603, 3-604, and others
The United States legal system is composed of interconnected frameworks, each serving specific purposes. This breakdown explores their distinct roles and how they interrelate:
When handling a BILL (Bill of Exchange) or NOTE (Promissory Note), applying principles from the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.), federal statutes, and historical resolutions ensures a secure and lawful process to establish control, discharge debts, and enforce obligations
When representing oneself in legal matters, terms like pro se and in propria persona (often accompanied by sui juris) describe different approaches to self-representation. Although these terms are frequently conflated, they represent distinct philosophies and legal statuses that impact how an individual interacts with the court. Understanding these differences is essential for anyone asserting their rights without legal counsel.
In the realm of civil litigation, summary judgment serves as a powerful procedural tool to resolve cases where there is no genuine dispute of material fact. Plaintiffs, ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© ESTATE and ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© IRR TRUST, have invoked this mechanism to propose an Order Granting Summary Judgment against Defendants. Their claim is fortified by well-established legal principles, an unassailable record of unrebutted affidavits, and adherence to statutory and procedural rules.
The Clearfield Doctrine, established in the Supreme Court case Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943), provides a critical lens to view the U.S. government’s role in commerce and contract law. This doctrine reveals that when the government engages in "commercial" transactions, it acts as a private entity and forfeits any claim to sovereign immunity. Its implications ripple through contract law, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and the understanding that everything, factually and legally, is commerce. Everything the Government does is "commercial." Think about that for a moment…