In this ongoing $2.975 billion lawsuit against SDCCU, the defendants exhibit a profound misunderstanding of basic legal principles, particularly regarding […]
The Plaintiffs, ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© ESTATE and ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© IRR TRUST, have formally responded to the Defendant’s Notice of Removal by […]
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.
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:
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.
it has become common practice for employers to require Social Security Numbers (SSNs) as a condition of employment. This practice is widespread, despite clear legal limitations set forth by federal law, specifically under 42 U.S.C. § 408. It is important to understand that the Social Security Number (SSN) was never intended to be used for identification purposes, and the forced disclosure of this number by non-governmental entities is illegal.
Contracts, legally binding agreements between parties, are often formed through mutual consent, typically involving an offer and acceptance. Silence, known as tacit agreement, acquiescence, or tacit procuration, can also legally bind parties to contract terms. This concept becomes vital when challenging purported fraudulent loans like mortgages. Through the strategic use of commercial affidavits, one can utilize contract law principles such as the mailbox rule, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and relevant statutes to enforce or modify contract terms. However, it is equally important to recognize that using Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) for debt payment may be interpreted as tacit acceptance of the contract’s terms, potentially resulting in the abandonment of one’s assets and exemptions. This action may further expose the purported borrower to legal risks under federal law.
When a purported borrower takes out a loan from a bank, it may seem as if the bank is lending its own money. However, under 12 U.S.C. § 83, banks are prohibited from lending their own funds. Instead, the bank uses the purported borrower’s promissory note—created through the borrower’s signature—as the source of credit. This note, becomes an asset on the bank’s books, allowing it to generate credit entries for a private monetary system without using its own capital. Importantly, no money leaves a bank account; all the credit generated is based on accounting entries.