In this ongoing $2.975 billion lawsuit against SDCCU, the defendants exhibit a profound misunderstanding of basic legal principles, particularly regarding the definition of “person” under 26 U.S. Code § 7701 and U.C.C. § 1-201(27). Their argument that trusts cannot sue companies or that a living individual cannot be represented by a non-attorney reveals a lack of comprehension of trust law and civil procedure. Additionally, their attempt to compel arbitration, despite the absence of any arbitration agreement, is both frivolous and legally unsound, as any such agreement procured by fraud is void ab initio. The defendants’ actions suggest either incompetence or a deliberate attempt to manipulate the legal process, warranting immediate summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs
Plaintiffs’ Conditional Acceptance and Motion for Summary Judgment
In response to the ongoing actions of the defendants in the $2.975 billion lawsuit against the San Diego County Credit Union (SDCCU), the plaintiffs have issued a Plaintiffs’ Conditional Acceptance to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, as well as a Plaintiffs’ Demand/Motion to Compel Summary Judgment Without Hearing. This response comes after the defendants’ egregious misinterpretations and unsubstantiated legal arguments, which only serve to highlight their complete incompetence and failure to understand basic commercial and contract law principles.
The defendants have made several critical errors, particularly regarding the definition of “person” under both 26 U.S. Code § 7701 and U.C.C. § 1-201(27), which has led to the plaintiffs’ formal response demanding immediate summary judgment in their favor, without the need for any further hearing or arbitration.
Defendants’ Misinterpretation of “Person” Under 26 U.S. Code § 7701
One of the most glaring mistakes made by the defenhttps://realworldfare.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/SDCCU-Defendants-Motion-to-Compel-Arbitration-and-Stay-Proceedings.pdfdants involves their misinterpretation of the term “person” under 26 U.S. Code § 7701. Contrary to the defendants’ assertion, 26 U.S. Code § 7701 clearly defines the term “person” to include not only individuals but also entities such as trusts, estates, partnerships, corporations, and other legal or commercial entities. The defendants have either ignored this statutory definition or misunderstood its application in the context of this lawsuit. This fundamental misunderstanding of tax law is just one example of the defendants’ apparent incompetence.
Defendants’ Dispute of U.C.C. § 1-201(27) and the Term “Person”
In addition to their incorrect reading of 26 U.S. Code § 7701, the defendants further dispute the definition of “person” as stated in U.C.C. § 1-201(27). This provision clearly defines “person” to include a wide range of legal entities, such as individuals, corporations, business trusts, estates, trusts, partnerships, and more. Yet, the defendants have bizarrely attempted to argue that this definition is incorrect or irrelevant to the case at hand. Their argument fails to hold up under scrutiny, revealing a lack of understanding of basic commercial and contract law principles.
U.C.C. § 1-201. General Definitions.
” (27) “Person” means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity. “
26 U.S. Code § 7701 – Definitions
“(1)Person: The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.”
Frivolous Arguments Regarding Trusts and Representation
The defendants have also raised the absurd argument that a trust cannot sue a company or that a living man or woman cannot be represented by a “non-attorney” in legal proceedings. This argument is not only frivolous but entirely legally flawed. Trusts have long been recognized as having the ability to initiate legal actions, and individuals have the right to represent themselves or be represented by non-attorneys in specific legal contexts. Furthermore, a trust can be represented by an attorney in fact, in propria persona, or other lawful means, giving individuals extensive rights in public and private capacities. These misconceptions only further illustrate the defendants’ incompetence in understanding basic civil procedures and