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 […]
This explanation clarifies the distinction between state citizens and nationals in the context of U.S. law, emphasizing that individuals born in a state are primarily state citizens with allegiance to their state, not to the federal United States, which is defined as a federal corporation occupying only 10 square miles. It highlights the absence of explicit references to "state citizen" in official documentation and how this ambiguity may be intentionally designed to centralize federal control. Understanding these distinctions can illuminate the complexities of citizenship and legal identity within the U.S. legal framework.
Claiming your estate and becoming a secured party is essential not for owning assets but for controlling them privately. When you properly establish yourself as the executor, authorized representative, and trustee of the "U.S. citizen" ens legis, you gain priority control over the estate, placing a lien on all assets as evidenced by a "security agreement" in accordance with UCC 9-509. This process ensures you have legal authority over the assets tied to your estate. Here’s a comprehensive explanation:
Discover the hidden connections between major institutions like Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo, and the IRS, all linked under the corporate structure of Northern Trust Corporation. Uncover how these financial giants, along with the American Bar Association, intertwine to control significant aspects of the legal and financial landscape. Explore the influence of these entities and the impact on the perception of government agencies and banks.
The term "Sovereign Citizen" is a derogatory and weaponized label and propaganda used to describe men or women who claim sovereignty but lack a full understanding of the legal distinctions between public and private law, as outlined in CFR § 27.11 and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. While these individuals may attempt to reserve their rights and operate independently, they often misuse legal terminology and fail to create unsworn declarations compliant with 28 U.S. Code § 1746. They misunderstand critical concepts like jurisdiction, contract law, and administrative procedures, and they incorrectly mix public and private law, leaving them unable to effectively assert and protect their rights under UCC § 1-308.
House Joint Resolution 192 of 1933 Public Law 73-10 and the Removal of Gold from America: a long time ago, back in 1933, the government had a big money problem. They couldn’t pay their bills, so they declared bankruptcy. To fix things, they created new rules. One of these was called Executive Order 6102, which made “U.S. citizens” turn in their gold coins and bars. In exchange, they received paper money called Federal Reserve Notes. But here’s the key part: this rule only applied to “U.S. citizens,” not to private citizens who knew they were different from that legal status.
Most people didn’t know the difference between the public and private sides of the law, so they unknowingly volunteered to give up their gold. By not understanding the difference, they became their ens legis, also known as their “straw man” “U.S. citizen,” or “trust,” or “bank,” or “corporation,” or “individual.” It is the fake version of themselves whether they consciously know it or know. The “U.S. citizen” is a “legal person” and a fiction—an entity. By volunteering to turn in their gold, these people also agreed to use Federal Reserve Notes instead of “lawful money,” which is gold and silver-backed. They entered into a contract without even realizing it, and contract is law and enforceable.