The United States legal system is composed of interconnected frameworks, each serving specific purposes. This breakdown explores their distinct roles and how they interrelate:
When handling a BILL (Bill of Exchange) or NOTE (Promissory Note), applying principles from the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.), federal statutes, and historical resolutions ensures a secure and lawful process to establish control, discharge debts, and enforce obligations
When representing oneself in legal matters, terms like pro se and in propria persona (often accompanied by sui juris) describe different approaches to self-representation. Although these terms are frequently conflated, they represent distinct philosophies and legal statuses that impact how an individual interacts with the court. Understanding these differences is essential for anyone asserting their rights without legal counsel.
In the realm of civil litigation, summary judgment serves as a powerful procedural tool to resolve cases where there is no genuine dispute of material fact. Plaintiffs, ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© ESTATE and ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© IRR TRUST, have invoked this mechanism to propose an Order Granting Summary Judgment against Defendants. Their claim is fortified by well-established legal principles, an unassailable record of unrebutted affidavits, and adherence to statutory and procedural rules.
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 […]
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 […]
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.
Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.
Here you'll find all collections you've created before.