In a groundbreaking legal case, the Kevin Walker Estate has filed a $100 million claim against the Menifee Justice Center, accusing it of racketeering, conspiracy, extortion, and coercion. The claim centers on affirmed violations of House Joint Resolution 192 of 1933 (Public Law 73-10), which prohibits requiring payment in specific forms of currency, including Federal Reserve Notes. This claim is supported by an unrebutted affidavit, which, under commercial law, is legally considered truth. The case highlights constitutional concerns, including Article I, Section 10, which forbids states from impairing contractual obligations. Using principles from the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), Kevin Walker Estate asserts that the Justice Center’s failure to rebut the claims creates a self-executing contract, solidifying liability. Legal experts suggest the case could set a precedent for challenging governmental overreach in financial and legal matters. The U.S. Attorney General and the Menifee Justice Center have yet to respond, but the case could significantly influence the enforcement of HJR 192 Public Law 73-10 and individual rights protections.
Georgia’s Own Credit Union dismissed its lawsuit (Case No. UDME2400947) after the KEVIN WALKER ESTATE exposed fraud and secured a $30 billion judgment. Using UCC §§ 1-103, 2-204, and 2-206, KEVIN WALKER ESTATE proved procedural dishonor, fraud, and bad faith. The judgment, enforceable as a matter of law, highlights the power of unrebutted evidence and legal maxims in commercial disputes. This case is a landmark victory for justice and accountability.
In the U.S. legal system, there is a fundamental distinction between criminal statutes and private rights of action. Criminal statutes define offenses against the state or public and are generally enforced by governmental prosecutors, such as the Attorney General, District Attorneys, or similar authorities. On the other hand, private rights of action enable individuals to bring lawsuits in civil court to enforce their rights or seek remedies for harm.
This article explores the relationship between these two areas of law, focusing on the limitations of criminal statutes for private litigants and the necessity of an explicitly articulated private right of action for civil claims.
In a recent and controversial ruling, Judge Roy K. Altman remanded a case back to state court, but his treatment of the law, particularly with regard to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and key federal statutes, is both troubling and legally indefensible. The plaintiffs cited well-established legal principles to support their claims, yet Judge Altman dismissed them without adequate explanation, as though these laws simply don’t exist. Most disturbingly, his ruling extends to dismissing the very foundational principles of U.S. financial law, including the legitimacy of the Federal Reserve Note and its origins in House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933 (Public Law 73-10)—a claim that is, frankly, nonsense.
In a landmark assertion of constitutional and contractual rights, Kevin, a state Citizen: Californian, national, proceeding sui juris (in one’s own right), has issued a Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure to Defendants James J Gaffney, Kevin Joseph Smale, Chad Bianco, Grewel, KEVIN SMALE, JAMES GAFFNEY, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF. Kevin’s claims are now confirmed as admitted and true, supported by an unrebutted commercial affidavit that has rendered all facts stated as established under the law. The dispute revolves around Kevin’s claim of his unalienable right to travel freely without being subjected to commercial regulations designed for corporate entities or individuals engaged in commerce, and the deprivation of his rights under the color of law.
In a world where legal complexities and coercive tactics often undermine personal sovereignty, few tools are as powerful as a properly constructed Notice of Conditional Acceptance. This article examines the profound implications of such a document, underscoring its capacity to challenge unlawful actions and assert the natural rights of individuals under contract law, common law, and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The case presented herein, involving Affiant Kevin: Walker, exemplifies how legal principles can be wielded to counter overreach, fraud, and coercion while upholding the unalienable right to travel.
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.
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.
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.