BMW of Florence and BMW of North America face serious assertions from the Brian Victor Charles Estate, including conspiracy, racketeering, and theft. Central to the case are unrebutted affidavits and the alleged unlawful repossession of a vehicle from BMW Florence’s private property.
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
The concept of citizenship in the United States is more complex than commonly understood. Legal precedents and statutory definitions reveal a critical distinction between a "state Citizen" (also referred to as a "national") and a "citizen of the United States." This article explores this distinction, highlighting key legal authorities, statutory provisions, and judicial opinions to clarify the implications for individuals seeking to understand their legal status and rights
In the American legal system, a fundamental distinction exists between benefits and rights—and understanding this distinction is critical if you aim to assert sovereign status or challenge government authority. At the heart of this issue lies the principle of constitutional estoppel, reinforced by the Ashwander Rules and long-standing doctrines in equity. Simply put: When you accept a government benefit, you forfeit certain rights, including the right to challenge the law that governs that benefit.
In legal disputes, deceptive tactics are often used to deflect attention from weak or unsupported positions. These include labeling arguments as “baseless” without evidence, failing to rebut claims, or resorting to vague and dismissive language. Such strategies rely on rhetorical evasion, ad hominem attacks, and mischaracterization to avoid engaging with the substance of the opposing party’s arguments. By identifying these tactics—like shifting the burden of proof or dismissing claims outright without analysis—you can expose their lack of merit and refocus the discussion on factual and legal foundations. Recognizing and addressing these behaviors is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the legal process.
Kevin: Walker, a natural, freeborn Sovereign, national, and state Citizen of the California De’Jure Republic, brings forth undeniable evidence of default, fraud, and violations of constitutional rights under color of law. Despite clear and lawful communication through affidavits and notices, the named respondents failed to provide a valid, point-for-point response, thereby admitting to the claims by tacit procuration. These violations include identity theft, extortion, racketeering, and deprivation of rights, causing significant harm to the Affiant. Standing on constitutional and natural law principles, Kevin asserts his inherent rights, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedents and legal maxims. The evidence establishes a prima facie case, rendering the respondents liable for damages, with no immunity shielding their unlawful actions. This case underscores the importance of accountability, due process, and the protection of individual rights
The Constitution of the United States guarantees unalienable rights, due process, and the sovereignty of the people, yet the actions of Sheppard Mullin, Shannon Peterson, and Blake Partridge blatantly undermine these principles. By depriving individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process, subverting the rule of law, and weaponizing authority to suppress justice, they have waged an assault on constitutional protections. Their conduct represents an affront to the nation’s legal framework and a betrayal of their duty to uphold the supreme law of the land. This article examines their violations and calls for accountability to defend the rule of law and the rights of the American people
Georgia’s Own Credit Union dismissed its lawsuit (Case No. UDME2400947) after the KEVIN WALKER ESTATE exposed fraud and secured a $30 billion judgment. Using UCC §§ 1-103, 2-204, and 2-206, KEVIN WALKER ESTATE proved procedural dishonor, fraud, and bad faith. The judgment, enforceable as a matter of law, highlights the power of unrebutted evidence and legal maxims in commercial disputes. This case is a landmark victory for justice and accountability.
In the U.S. legal system, there is a fundamental distinction between criminal statutes and private rights of action. Criminal statutes define offenses against the state or public and are generally enforced by governmental prosecutors, such as the Attorney General, District Attorneys, or similar authorities. On the other hand, private rights of action enable individuals to bring lawsuits in civil court to enforce their rights or seek remedies for harm.
This article explores the relationship between these two areas of law, focusing on the limitations of criminal statutes for private litigants and the necessity of an explicitly articulated private right of action for civil claims.
In a recent and controversial ruling, Judge Roy K. Altman remanded a case back to state court, but his treatment of the law, particularly with regard to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and key federal statutes, is both troubling and legally indefensible. The plaintiffs cited well-established legal principles to support their claims, yet Judge Altman dismissed them without adequate explanation, as though these laws simply don’t exist. Most disturbingly, his ruling extends to dismissing the very foundational principles of U.S. financial law, including the legitimacy of the Federal Reserve Note and its origins in House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933 (Public Law 73-10)—a claim that is, frankly, nonsense.
In a landmark assertion of constitutional and contractual rights, Kevin, a state Citizen: Californian, national, proceeding sui juris (in one’s own right), has issued a Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure to Defendants James J Gaffney, Kevin Joseph Smale, Chad Bianco, Grewel, KEVIN SMALE, JAMES GAFFNEY, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF. Kevin’s claims are now confirmed as admitted and true, supported by an unrebutted commercial affidavit that has rendered all facts stated as established under the law. The dispute revolves around Kevin’s claim of his unalienable right to travel freely without being subjected to commercial regulations designed for corporate entities or individuals engaged in commerce, and the deprivation of his rights under the color of law.