Procedural Challenge: Subject Matter Jurisdiction at Issue
At the heart of the plaintiffs’ filing is a challenge to the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. The plaintiffs assert that any orders or rulings issued by Judge Roy K. Altman or the Southern District of Florida are void due to the alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In their filing, the plaintiffs cite on legal precedents to affirm that a court without proper jurisdiction is powerless to make binding decisions, rendering any proceedings “null and void ab initio.”
The plaintiffs emphasize the following points:
- All orders and judgments issued without jurisdiction are legally void and unenforceable.
- Judicial immunity does not apply to actions taken beyond jurisdiction.
- Proceedings conducted without jurisdiction are inherently defective and unlawful.
The plaintiffs reserve the right to pursue remedies and sanctions, describing what they view as a “willful disregard for the rule of law” in the conduct of the case.
Standing and Property Dispute
A key issue in this case is a property dispute over a private automobile which was stolen from Plaintiffs by Defendants. The plaintiffs affirm that they hold exclusive standing and ownership of the vehicle, citing several Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) filings as proof of their rights. According to the plaintiffs, they possess an allodial title to the disputed asset, and they allege that the defendants unlawfully disposed of trust property.
The plaintiffs bolster their claims with affidavits, including one from Walker Todd, a former Federal Reserve attorney, who affirms their status as the true creditors. They affirm that the defendants’ failure to rebut these affidavits constitutes tacit admission of misconduct and fraud.
Constitutional Violations Alleged
The plaintiffs have leveled severe claims (now affirmed and unrebutted by Defendants) against the defendants, articulating their actions as a “war against the Constitution.” Among the constitutional violations they allege are:
- Deprivation of unalienable rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, particularly the deprivation of property without due process of law.
- Subversion of the rule of law, undermining constitutional checks and balances.
- Treasonous conduct as defined by Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, for allegedly waging a domestic war against constitutional principles.
The plaintiffs affirm that these actions are not simply procedural violations but represent acts of aggression and tyranny, threatening the fabric of the nation’s legal system.
Call for Criminal Prosecution
In addition to their demand for sanctions, the plaintiffs are demanding for criminal referrals and prosecution of the defendants for violations of federal statutes under Title 18, given an “enforcer” must prosecute. Based on the evidence, the plaintiffs affirm by way of various unrebutted affidavits that the defendants are guilty of fraud, coercion, and racketeering, asserting that the defendants have used their authority to suppress legitimate claims and evidence.
The plaintiffs interpret the defendants’ reliance on procedural defenses as a “willful admission of guilt” and are pushing for enforcement action by a district attorney or attorney general.
Legal Implications: ‘State Citizen’ vs. ‘Citizen of the United States’
The plaintiffs also engage in a detailed constitutional argument, making a distinction between “state Citizens” and “citizens of the United States.” Drawing from case law, they assert that the defendants have conflated these two separate statuses, further infringing on their constitutional rights.
Conditional Acceptance to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration
In their motion, the plaintiffs conditionally accept the defendants’ motions and claims in accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), legal maxims, and principles of contract law. However, this acceptance is contingent upon the following proofs from the defendants:
- Proof of a valid arbitration agreement, one that the plaintiffs willingly agreed to with full and completed disclosure.
- Proof that the defendants’ commercial affidavits and/or security agreements (Exhibits E, F, and H) did not alter or negate the terms of any contract, consistent with contract law and UCC principles.
- Proof that the defendants are not above the law, the Constitution, the UCC, or contract law.
- Proof that the defendants received and agreed to all contract terms outlined in the unrebutted verified commercial affidavits.
- Proof that the original contract was not void ab initio as a result of fraud, racketeering, and other unlawful actions.
Defendants’ Presumption of Dishonor Under U.C.C. § 3-505
The plaintiffs affirm that the defendants’ failure to rebut or provide evidence of their performance is proof of dishonor. Under U.C.C. § 3-505, a notarized affidavit can serve as evidence of dishonor, creating a presumption of dishonor. The plaintiffs’ “Affidavit Certificate of Dishonor, Non-Response, Default, Judgment, and Lien Authorization” (Exhibit E) is cited as proof of this dishonor, in compliance with the requirements of U.C.C. § 3-505.
Defendants’ Erroneous Focus on “Pro Se” Is Irrelevant
The plaintiffs reject the defendants’ focus on the “pro se” designation, clarifying that they are trusts lawfully represented by ‘Attorney(s) In Fact’ under constitutional protections. The plaintiffs proceed “In Propria Persona” (pro per) and ‘Sui Juris’, not pro se, as clearly indicated in the record.
Defendants Have Failed to Rebut or Provide Evidence
The plaintiffs affirm that the defendants have failed to rebut their claims and conditional acceptance with specific factual evidence, as required by contract law and U.C.C. provisions. The defendants’ reliance on mischaracterizations, general denials, and irrelevant legal citations has further compounded their dishonor and default under the law.
Full Admission by Defendants
Finally, the plaintiffs affirm that the defendants have effectively admitted to receiving, reading, and considering all of the plaintiffs’ verified commercial affidavits. By failing to provide any valid rebuttal or evidence, the defendants have tacitly admitted to the plaintiffs’ claims, paving the way for summary judgment in the plaintiffs’ favor.
What’s Next?
The plaintiffs’ filing has raised significant questions regarding jurisdiction, constitutional violations, and criminal culpability, attracting considerable attention within the legal community. Analysts suggest that the court’s response to these claims could have far-reaching implications for property disputes, jurisdictional challenges, and the protection of constitutional rights in the U.S.
As the case continues, the plaintiffs remain resolute in their pursuit of justice, demanding sanctions and a ruling in their favor. The Southern District of Florida is set to be the focal point of a legal battle that may redefine the boundaries of judicial authority and constitutional law in the United States.
