The U.S. legal system presumes every man or woman to be a decedent or minor in commerce until they claim their securities under 31 CFR § 363.6, effectively placing their estate under government control. Title 26 U.S.C. §§ 7603, 6903, and 6036 establish that no public servant can act upon an estate without proper fiduciary authorization. This article breaks down how statutes like 31 U.S.C. § 1321 and 26 U.S.C. § 2203 confirm the necessity of asserting one’s legal standing to prevent unlawful interference with an estate. Understanding these laws is crucial for reclaiming control over one’s financial and legal status
The financial and legal system operates on an underlying structure of trusts, often without the knowledge or consent of the individual. From the moment a person is born, various constructive, involuntary, and resulting trusts are created in their name, serving as the foundation for financial transactions, taxation, and legal obligations. This article explores how birth certificates, Social Security numbers, loans, mortgages, deeds, and other financial instruments are all rooted in a system of trusts, which many argue is a form of permissible fraud designed to control assets and labor.
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.
Defendants Kevin Walker and Donnabelle Mortel, both nationals, secure a victory as a fraudulent unlawful detainer case is dismissed. They now demand and are entitled to at least $1,000,000 in legal costs, compensatory and punitive damages, and sanctions for procedural misconduct and fraud on the court. The case sets a precedent for holding plaintiffs accountable for abuse of the judicial process
according to statutes, codes, and public policy, bills of exchange are legally recognized as currency because they discharge debt obligations in commerce. HJR 192, 31 USC 5118, and 12 USC 412 establish that debt instruments replace gold as legal payment. UCC provisions (3-603, 3-311, and 3-601) confirm that offering a bill of exchange settles debts, even if refused.
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 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.
Judges, contrary to popular belief, are not above the law and can be held personally accountable when they act outside their constitutional authority, violate rights, or engage in misconduct. Through legal principles like the Clearfield Doctrine and statutes such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983, individuals have clear pathways to seek redress. Everything in the "public" is commercial thus those are "commercial" transactions, Congress regulates "interstate commerce," and the statutes and U.C.C. and United States Code are for a corporation, trust, ens legis, person, trust company, individual or similar. Not living men and woman.
When most people think of ZIP Codes™, they imagine a simple five-digit number designed for efficient mail delivery. However, there’s a much darker reality beneath the surface: the ZIP Code™ is actually a trademark. This legal classification holds profound implications about its origin, ownership, and use, exposing how the United States Postal Service (USPS) created and controls it as a proprietary system.
More troublingly, the use of a ZIP Code™ carries far-reaching legal and commercial consequences. By including a ZIP Code™ in an address, individuals unknowingly submit themselves to federal jurisdiction, signaling their participation in a system of federally regulated commerce. Understanding this connection reveals how ZIP Codes™ function not only as logistical tools but also as instruments of control and governance, linking people to a centralized, federally managed structure.
The "legal" definition of a "resident" takes on new significance in this context. In legal terms, a "resident" is not a living man or woman, but a "thing" identified and confined within a specific jurisdiction. By "identifying" as a "resident" through the use of a ZIP Code™, a living man or woman "legally" transforms into a corporate entity—an ens legis—a legal fiction. This shift in "status" by way of contract, strips the man or woman of their Sovereignty, and places them under federal authority, stripping them of their status as a living man or woman and "subjecting" them to the far-reaching control of the government.
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.
Exploring equitable subrogation and its independence from UCC requirements: This article addresses a bank‘s challenge claiming the UCC supplants equitable subrogation rights. Backed by case law and UCC §1-103, it confirms that subrogation arises by equity, not contract, ensuring sureties’ priority over security interests without UCC filings. Learn how federal and state courts affirm these principles and the limitations of UCC Title 9 in such contexts.
In a case centered on allegations of breach of contract, fraud, dishonor, and related wrongs, plaintiffs ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© ESTATE and ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© IRR TRUST have demanded judicial intervention and mandamus relief with the Supreme Court of the United States. The plaintiffs assert that the federal district court’s administrative closure of their case due to doubts over subject matter jurisdiction leaves the Supreme Court as the only appropriate venue for resolving the matter.