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…
Temecula, CA – In a groundbreaking legal battle, the ™KEVIN WALKER© ESTATE, alongside affiliated trusts, has filed a verified complaint […]
The Plaintiffs, ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© ESTATE and ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© IRR TRUST, have formally responded to the Defendant’s Notice of Removal by […]
Under CFR 72.11, commercial crimes include offenses like counterfeiting, fraud, and other violations affecting financial institutions, categorized under both federal and state law. These crimes, even if lacking a direct "corpus delicti" or identifiable victim, are treated as commercial offenses due to their impact on economic systems and public revenue. The Commerce Clause grants federal jurisdiction over these offenses, reinforcing protections for financial transactions and commercial stability. This legal framework emphasizes the commercial nature of crimes impacting interstate commerce, ensuring a unified approach to regulation and enforcement.
San Diego County Credit Union (SDCCU) and its representatives from Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP are facing intense legal scrutiny with two key motions and a demand to expedite proceedings, all filed "as a matter of law." The “Motion for Summary Judgment” and the “Demand for Summary Judgment Without Hearing” are supported and EVIDENCED by three unrebutted affidavits, alleging serious misconduct including fraud, embezzlement, and constitutional violations. Should the court fail to grant the summary judgment, the plaintiff plans to file a writ of mandamus to compel the judgment or demand recusal of the judge for bias. This case highlights significant claims and constitutional implications, potentially setting a precedent for accountability in the financial and legal sectors.
West Coast Exotic Cars is embroiled in serious legal issues that stem from fraudulent and unethical business practices, as evidenced by unrebutted affidavits that establish a prima facie case against the dealership. The following points summarize the key violations and the corresponding legal statutes that highlight the gravity of the situation:
In a pivotal case defendants including San Diego County Credit Union and Sheppard Mullin submitted a Notice of Removal with questionable stipulations. In response, plaintiffs Steven MacArthur-Brooks Estate and STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS IRR Trust, represented by Attorneys Kevin L. Walker and Steven MacArthur-Brooks, filed a "Verified Motion for Summary Judgment and Conditional Acceptance," asserting that immediate resolution is warranted as a matter of law due to binding, unrebutted commercial affidavits. The motion emphasizes that these affidavits, as uncontested evidence, establish a clear path to summary judgment under federal and Florida contract law, highlighting the defendants’ failure to substantiate their claims and the necessity for the court to act without delay.
The Estate of Steven MacArthur Brooks has filed a $2.975 billion lawsuit against San Diego County Credit Union, asserting a legally binding contract and requesting summary judgment. This claim highlights the plaintiffs’ standing as secured creditors under the Uniform Commercial Code, supported by unrebutted affidavits and documented acceptance of contractual terms by the defendants. The case centers on a security agreement and contract, with the defendants’ lack of response legally reinforcing the plaintiffs’ demand for summary judgment.
In legal practice, the roles of an "Attorney at Law" (commonly referred to as a "Lawyer") and an "Attorney in Fact" are distinct and carry different responsibilities and powers. This distinction is crucial when considering legal representation, personal agency, and the management of one’s affairs, especially in terms of maintaining personal sovereignty.
This piece explores the inherent right of individuals to practice law without a license, emphasizing that the legal system cannot monopolize this fundamental liberty. It references key court rulings affirming that the practice of law is a common right, along with the distinctions between "Attorney in Fact" and "Attorney at Law." The piece critiques the corporate nature of the United States and its impact on individual rights. Additionally, biblical teachings are invoked to underline the moral obligation to advocate for the voiceless, calling for a reclaiming of justice for all.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published […]