The Plaintiffs, ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© ESTATE and ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© IRR TRUST, have formally responded to the Defendant’s Notice of Removal by conditionally accepting and filing a ‘VERIFIED DEMAND/MOTION FOR EXPEDITED SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, WITHOUT HEARING.’ Plaintiffs emphasize that all matters in this case are resolved and settled under the doctrines of res judicata, stare decisis, and collateral estoppel. Plaintiffs assert that the three unrebutted affidavits (Exhibits C, D, and E) submitted with the initial complaint conclusively establish the facts and the Truth, which Defendants have agreed to by tacit procuration.
The Plaintiffs hereby demand summary judgment in their favor for the amount of $2,975,000,000.00, as stipulated by the terms of the agreement. They assert that there is no material dispute of fact and that the binding obligations of the Defendants are established under contract law and commercial principles. Plaintiffs request that the Court grant this judgment without the need for a hearing, as all issues have already been resolved.
Agreements Affirmed by Defendants’ Actions
Plaintiffs affirm that the unrebutted affidavits (Exhibits E, F, and H) are binding under contract law. These affidavits demonstrate that Defendants have consented to the terms of the agreement through their silence, tacit acceptance, and failure to rebut within the commercially recognized 72-hour period. According to contract principles, this silence constitutes acceptance, making all terms enforceable.
Additionally, Plaintiffs clarify that there is no stipulation to arbitration in this matter. The affidavits submitted serve as the definitive expression of the agreement under U.C.C. § 2-202, which prohibits contradictions by prior or contemporaneous agreements. As such, arbitration is unnecessary, and the terms of the agreement are binding and enforceable.
Legal Standards Supporting Plaintiffs’ Position
The Plaintiffs rely on well-established principles of contract law, supported by the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.):
- U.C.C. § 2-204: A contract can be formed even if the exact terms are not specified, provided the parties intended to form a contract and agreed on essential terms.
- U.C.C. § 2-206: An offer is accepted and binding upon the offeror unless explicitly stated otherwise. The Defendants’ actions demonstrate acceptance of the Plaintiffs’ terms.
- U.C.C. § 1-103: Fraud, duress, or other unlawful conditions do not invalidate a contract that meets the requirements of commercial law.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
The Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies. Defendants’ actions compelled the Plaintiffs to seek judicial intervention after the Defendants repeatedly failed to honor the terms of the agreement. The Plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence through Exhibits Q, R, S, and T, which further demonstrate Defendants’ acceptance of the agreement.
Facts Are Settled and Binding
The Plaintiffs emphasize that all facts have been admitted and are binding as per the unrebutted affidavits, in accordance with established legal precedents:
- An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce: Affidavits not challenged or contradicted are accepted as true by the courts (Winsett v. Donaldson, 244 N.W.2d 355 (Mich. 1976)).
- Truth is sovereign in commerce: Silence and inaction are equivalent to agreement, affirming the binding nature of the contract.
- No party can diminish the rights of another or invalidate agreed-upon terms: The Plaintiffs’ claims stand as indisputable and enforceable.
Conclusion
Given the Defendants’ failure to contest the terms outlined in the Plaintiffs’ affidavits, all matters are deemed settled under the principles of res judicata, stare decisis, and collateral estoppel. The Plaintiffs respectfully demand summary judgment as a matter of law, enforcing the terms of the binding agreement and confirming the Defendants’ obligations under commercial law and contract principles.
