An Article III court provides essential protections in civil contract disputes involving unrebutted affidavits. It ensures due process, enforces uncontested evidence, and offers both legal and equitable remedies. With exclusive equity jurisdiction, these courts can compel performance, issue injunctions, and affirm binding agreements, safeguarding constitutional rights and justice.
This case law summary highlights key legal principles on jurisdiction, standing, and procedural requirements in financial and mortgage-related cases. Courts consistently void judgments rendered without proper jurisdiction and emphasize the need for plaintiffs to demonstrate legal standing. Fraudulent lending practices, including violations of federal regulations, have led to dismissals with prejudice. Corporate overreach by banks is curtailed through rulings that prohibit lending credit and ultra vires contracts. Evidentiary standards stress the sufficiency of affidavits and the duty to disclose information to prevent fraud. Contract principles underscore the nullification of agreements based on illegal consideration
BMW of Florence and BMW of North America face serious assertions from the Brian Victor Charles Estate, including conspiracy, racketeering, and theft. Central to the case are unrebutted affidavits and the alleged unlawful repossession of a vehicle from BMW Florence’s private property.
according to statutes, codes, and public policy, bills of exchange are legally recognized as currency because they discharge debt obligations in commerce. HJR 192, 31 USC 5118, and 12 USC 412 establish that debt instruments replace gold as legal payment. UCC provisions (3-603, 3-311, and 3-601) confirm that offering a bill of exchange settles debts, even if refused.
In the American legal system, a fundamental distinction exists between benefits and rights—and understanding this distinction is critical if you aim to assert sovereign status or challenge government authority. At the heart of this issue lies the principle of constitutional estoppel, reinforced by the Ashwander Rules and long-standing doctrines in equity. Simply put: When you accept a government benefit, you forfeit certain rights, including the right to challenge the law that governs that benefit.
Van Ballion (Nigel Turner), a UK-based content creator, and Michael J. Gravlin, an attorney at law behind the channel Law Talks with Mike, are accused by critics of actively undermining the constitutional rights of Americans. Their content spreads misinformation, misrepresents legal concepts, and wages smear campaigns against non-citizen nationals/nationals and state Citizens who assert their lawful rights and expect Constitutional security and protection. Michael Gravlin’s role as an officer of the court raises concerns about ethical violations, as his platform reportedly labels Americans with disparaging terms such as "Sov Cits" to maliciously disprage and undermine their legal advocacy. Van Ballion, despite lacking ties to the U.S. legal system, interferes in American civic discourse through malicious, dispraging, and harmful commentary. The KEVIN WALKER ESTATE is now preparing to sue YouTube, Turner, and Gravlin for malicious defamation, libel, and conspiracy to undermine lawful discourse, conspiracy and racketerring against the people of America. Americans seeking to protect their rights or who have been defamed are encouraged to assert their rights and seek redress.
The Plaintiffs in KEVIN WALKER ESTATE, et al. vs. SIERRA PACIFIC MORTGAGE COMPANY, et al. have delivered an unchallenged demand for One Billion Dollars in default and summary judgment under Rule 56, citing unrebutted affidavits, binding agreements, and procedural dishonor by the Defendants. The Defendants’ silence invokes legal doctrines like stare decisis, res judicata, and collateral estoppel, affirming the Plaintiffs’ entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Supported by UCC §§ 1-103, 2-204, 2-206, and 3-505, this case highlights the power of legal maxims and commercial law in ensuring justice. With no genuine dispute of material fact, the Plaintiffs’ claim remains final and enforceable without a hearing
Judges, contrary to popular belief, are not above the law and can be held personally accountable when they act outside their constitutional authority, violate rights, or engage in misconduct. Through legal principles like the Clearfield Doctrine and statutes such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983, individuals have clear pathways to seek redress. Everything in the "public" is commercial thus those are "commercial" transactions, Congress regulates "interstate commerce," and the statutes and U.C.C. and United States Code are for a corporation, trust, ens legis, person, trust company, individual or similar. Not living men and woman.
In legal proceedings, the importance of an unrebutted affidavit cannot be overstated. When an affidavit is not contested, it holds the power to determine the outcome of a case, often leading to summary judgment. Summary judgment, a legal procedure used to resolve cases without a trial, is granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact. An unrebutted affidavit is a crucial tool in supporting this process, as it provides irrefutable evidence that, if unchallenged, becomes the foundation of the court’s ruling.
In both federal and state legal systems, summary judgment is a mechanism designed to expedite legal proceedings by resolving disputes when no material facts are in dispute. The power of an unrebutted affidavit is intertwined with summary judgment, as it can shift the balance of a case and establish the facts that form the basis for judgment.
In legal disputes, deceptive tactics are often used to deflect attention from weak or unsupported positions. These include labeling arguments as “baseless” without evidence, failing to rebut claims, or resorting to vague and dismissive language. Such strategies rely on rhetorical evasion, ad hominem attacks, and mischaracterization to avoid engaging with the substance of the opposing party’s arguments. By identifying these tactics—like shifting the burden of proof or dismissing claims outright without analysis—you can expose their lack of merit and refocus the discussion on factual and legal foundations. Recognizing and addressing these behaviors is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the legal process.
The Constitution of the United States guarantees unalienable rights, due process, and the sovereignty of the people, yet the actions of Sheppard Mullin, Shannon Peterson, and Blake Partridge blatantly undermine these principles. By depriving individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process, subverting the rule of law, and weaponizing authority to suppress justice, they have waged an assault on constitutional protections. Their conduct represents an affront to the nation’s legal framework and a betrayal of their duty to uphold the supreme law of the land. This article examines their violations and calls for accountability to defend the rule of law and the rights of the American people
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.