The term matrix, as defined across editions of Black’s Law Dictionary, is crucial in understanding legal processes, particularly in lawsuits. The matrix refers to the original draft or protocol of a legal instrument from which all copies and actions must originate. This foundational concept directly connects to lawsuits, which are inherently commercial in nature. Further, Title 27 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 72.11 explicitly classifies all crimes as commercial crimes, reinforcing the commercial framework underlying lawsuits. When combined, these concepts demonstrate how lawsuits involve a matrix that ties together all charges, claims, and related matters within a commercial context.
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.
In a groundbreaking legal maneuver grounded in contract law, Kevin Walker, acting as Plaintiff and Attorney-in-Fact for the ™KEVIN WALKER© ESTATE, has officially filed a Notice of Default against the California Highway Patrol (CHP), the State of California, and the Riverside County Sheriff. The filing alleges a breach of contractual obligations under common law, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and constitutional protections, demanding accountability for actions the Plaintiffs claim were unlawful and coercive.
At the center of the dispute is Ticket #7W50000TL, which the Plaintiffs affirm, via an unrebutted commercial affidavit, constitutes a fraudulent and coercive offer presented without valid consent. The Notice of Default demands an initial payment of $100,000,000.00 USD, escalating to $900,000,000,000.00 USD in total liability should the Defendants fail to fulfill their contractual obligations and respond in accordance with the terms outlined in the conditional acceptance agreement
When engaging in a legal case, the type of appearance you make in court can have significant implications for your rights, jurisdictional objections, and overall strategy. This article examines the different types of appearances—general, special, conditional, and special limited appearances—with a focus on special limited appearance, a nuanced tool for addressing specific procedural issues without submitting to the court’s full jurisdiction.
The U.S. judicial system operates under a dual structure of federal and state courts, each with defined jurisdiction based on the U.S. Constitution and statutory law. This structure was codified under the Judicial Code of June 25, 1948 (62 Stat. 869). Below is an overview of the courts, their constitutional basis, and how different methods of pleading—pro se and sui juris, in propria persona—affect one’s standing.
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.
In today’s complex legal and administrative landscape, asserting individual sovereignty and the right to travel is more important than ever. This article explores the significance of self-executing contracts and security agreements, examining their role in preserving personal freedoms, ensuring due process, and protecting fundamental rights. Using the case of ™KEVIN WALKER© ESTATE, ™KEVIN LEWIS WALKER©, ™KEVIN WALKER© IRR TRUST, represented by attorney-in-fact Kevin Walker, this piece highlights the legal principles, precedents, and doctrines underpinning these critical instruments in protecting the right to travel.This article also emphasizes that if this matter is not promptly settled, it will result in a $900,000,000,000.00 USD (billion) lawsuit filed for summary judgment as a matter of law, invoking contract law, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and legal maxims, including silent acquiescence, tacit agreement, tacit procuration, and binding contracts.
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 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.