An Article III court provides essential protections in civil contract disputes involving unrebutted affidavits. It ensures due process, enforces uncontested evidence, and offers both legal and equitable remedies. With exclusive equity jurisdiction, these courts can compel performance, issue injunctions, and affirm binding agreements, safeguarding constitutional rights and justice.
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 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.
When representing oneself in legal matters, terms like pro se and in propria persona (often accompanied by sui juris) describe different approaches to self-representation. Although these terms are frequently conflated, they represent distinct philosophies and legal statuses that impact how an individual interacts with the court. Understanding these differences is essential for anyone asserting their rights without legal counsel.
The Clearfield Doctrine, established in the Supreme Court case Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943), provides a critical lens to view the U.S. government’s role in commerce and contract law. This doctrine reveals that when the government engages in "commercial" transactions, it acts as a private entity and forfeits any claim to sovereign immunity. Its implications ripple through contract law, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and the understanding that everything, factually and legally, is commerce. Everything the Government does is "commercial." Think about that for a moment…
Download Copy. 829 Case No. 14,459. 24FED.CAS.—53 UNITED STATES V. ANTHONY. [11 Blatchf. 200; 5 Chi. Leg. News. 462, 493; […]