Learn about the differences between "Pro Se" and "Pro Per" representation in legal matters, particularly when it comes to trust representation. "Pro Se" refers to representing oneself voluntarily within the court’s jurisdiction, while "Pro Per" allows individuals to assert their personal status and challenge court jurisdiction. This distinction highlights the power of an Affidavit of Power of Attorney In Fact, which grants an Attorney In Fact the authority to represent a trust, bypassing the need for a licensed attorney in public jurisdiction. Understand how these legal roles impact court standing and the ability to assert constitutional and contractual rights
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.
In a world where legal complexities and coercive tactics often undermine personal sovereignty, few tools are as powerful as a properly constructed Notice of Conditional Acceptance. This article examines the profound implications of such a document, underscoring its capacity to challenge unlawful actions and assert the natural rights of individuals under contract law, common law, and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The case presented herein, involving Affiant Kevin: Walker, exemplifies how legal principles can be wielded to counter overreach, fraud, and coercion while upholding the unalienable right to travel.
In a meticulously documented and detailed legal action, the Plaintiffs—including ™KEVIN WALKER© ESTATE, ™DONNABELLE MORTEL© ESTATE, ™KEVIN WALKER© IRR TRUST, and ™WG EXPRESS TRUST©—hereinafter collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs," assert their standing as undisputed creditors, holders in due course, and executors of both tangible and intangible assets. The Plaintiffs’ claims are built upon unrebutted affidavits and irrefutable contractual evidence, which stand as truth in commerce and are conclusively binding under res judicata, stare decisis, and collateral estoppel.
In what promises to be a high-stakes and precedent-setting legal battle, ™KEVIN WALKER© ESTATE, and related entities have issued a notice of intent to pursue confirmed claims against multiple defendants, including Rancho California Water District, its officers, trustees, and Does 1-100 inclusive. The claimants affirm an array of serious violations, including fraud, racketeering, conspiracym identity theft, extortion, conspiracy, and deprivation of rights under the color of law. With an intricate framework of legal statutes and principles underpinning the admitted violations and felony crimes (thus the unrebutted affidavits), the lawsuit could set a powerful example of using legal mechanisms to demand accountability.
In a groundbreaking legal maneuver grounded in contract law, Kevin Walker, acting as Plaintiff and Attorney-in-Fact for the ™KEVIN WALKER© ESTATE, has officially filed a Notice of Default against the California Highway Patrol (CHP), the State of California, and the Riverside County Sheriff. The filing alleges a breach of contractual obligations under common law, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and constitutional protections, demanding accountability for actions the Plaintiffs claim were unlawful and coercive.
At the center of the dispute is Ticket #7W50000TL, which the Plaintiffs affirm, via an unrebutted commercial affidavit, constitutes a fraudulent and coercive offer presented without valid consent. The Notice of Default demands an initial payment of $100,000,000.00 USD, escalating to $900,000,000,000.00 USD in total liability should the Defendants fail to fulfill their contractual obligations and respond in accordance with the terms outlined in the conditional acceptance agreement
Understanding the distinction between a demand and a motion is essential in legal and commercial matters, as each serves a different purpose and reflects the position of the party making the submission. While both terms involve asserting rights or seeking outcomes, the processes, implications, and advantages of each vary significantly. This article explores these differences in depth, outlining their roles, functions, and strategic applications.
The KEVIN WALKER ESTATE and WALKERNOVA GROUP l have uncovered undeniable fraud, procedural dishonor, and violations of commercial law by Georgia’s Own Credit Union, Quality Loan Service Corporation, Cenlar Federal Savings & Loan, Fidelity National Title Company, and McCarthy & Holthus, LLP. Their verified affidavits and documented evidence confirm the fraud committed and the unlawful attempts to seize property to which these entities have no legal claim. KEVIN WALKER ESTATE is demanding $30 billion in summary judgment, based on fraud, breach of contract, and violations of UCC provisions, contract law, and legal maxims. The facts are clear, and the evidence is unrebutted, demonstrating the fully admitted wrongful actions of these parties.
KEVIN WALKER ESTATE is demanding $30 billion in summary judgment, based on fraud, breach of contract, and violations of UCC provisions, contract law, and legal maxims. The facts are clear, and the evidence is unrebutted, demonstrating the wrongful actions of these parties.
Pulling over a man or woman traveling privately in a non-commercial automobile marked "PRIVATE" without lawful cause can constitute a violation of constitutional rights and federal law. When law enforcement applies commercial laws intended for motor vehicles to private automobiles, such actions may cross into criminal conduct and civil liability under state and federal statutes.
In today’s complex legal and administrative landscape, asserting individual sovereignty and the right to travel is more important than ever. This article explores the significance of self-executing contracts and security agreements, examining their role in preserving personal freedoms, ensuring due process, and protecting fundamental rights. Using the case of ™KEVIN WALKER© ESTATE, ™KEVIN LEWIS WALKER©, ™KEVIN WALKER© IRR TRUST, represented by attorney-in-fact Kevin Walker, this piece highlights the legal principles, precedents, and doctrines underpinning these critical instruments in protecting the right to travel.This article also emphasizes that if this matter is not promptly settled, it will result in a $900,000,000,000.00 USD (billion) lawsuit filed for summary judgment as a matter of law, invoking contract law, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and legal maxims, including silent acquiescence, tacit agreement, tacit procuration, and binding contracts.
The Plaintiffs, ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© ESTATE and ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© IRR TRUST, have formally responded to the Defendant’s Notice of Removal by […]
The Estate of Steven MacArthur Brooks has filed a $2.975 billion lawsuit against San Diego County Credit Union, asserting a legally binding contract and requesting summary judgment. This claim highlights the plaintiffs’ standing as secured creditors under the Uniform Commercial Code, supported by unrebutted affidavits and documented acceptance of contractual terms by the defendants. The case centers on a security agreement and contract, with the defendants’ lack of response legally reinforcing the plaintiffs’ demand for summary judgment.