In this ongoing $2.975 billion lawsuit against SDCCU, the defendants exhibit a profound misunderstanding of basic legal principles, particularly regarding […]
The Plaintiffs, ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© ESTATE and ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© IRR TRUST, have formally responded to the Defendant’s Notice of Removal by […]
San Diego County Credit Union (SDCCU) and its representatives from Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP are facing intense legal scrutiny with two key motions and a demand to expedite proceedings, all filed "as a matter of law." The “Motion for Summary Judgment” and the “Demand for Summary Judgment Without Hearing” are supported and EVIDENCED by three unrebutted affidavits, alleging serious misconduct including fraud, embezzlement, and constitutional violations. Should the court fail to grant the summary judgment, the plaintiff plans to file a writ of mandamus to compel the judgment or demand recusal of the judge for bias. This case highlights significant claims and constitutional implications, potentially setting a precedent for accountability in the financial and legal sectors.
In a pivotal case defendants including San Diego County Credit Union and Sheppard Mullin submitted a Notice of Removal with questionable stipulations. In response, plaintiffs Steven MacArthur-Brooks Estate and STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS IRR Trust, represented by Attorneys Kevin L. Walker and Steven MacArthur-Brooks, filed a "Verified Motion for Summary Judgment and Conditional Acceptance," asserting that immediate resolution is warranted as a matter of law due to binding, unrebutted commercial affidavits. The motion emphasizes that these affidavits, as uncontested evidence, establish a clear path to summary judgment under federal and Florida contract law, highlighting the defendants’ failure to substantiate their claims and the necessity for the court to act without delay.
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.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published […]
This explanation clarifies the distinction between state citizens and nationals in the context of U.S. law, emphasizing that individuals born in a state are primarily state citizens with allegiance to their state, not to the federal United States, which is defined as a federal corporation occupying only 10 square miles. It highlights the absence of explicit references to "state citizen" in official documentation and how this ambiguity may be intentionally designed to centralize federal control. Understanding these distinctions can illuminate the complexities of citizenship and legal identity within the U.S. legal framework.
it has become common practice for employers to require Social Security Numbers (SSNs) as a condition of employment. This practice is widespread, despite clear legal limitations set forth by federal law, specifically under 42 U.S.C. § 408. It is important to understand that the Social Security Number (SSN) was never intended to be used for identification purposes, and the forced disclosure of this number by non-governmental entities is illegal.
All contracts with the government are fundamentally voluntary, allowing every man and woman to stand on their rights and exemptions as private citizens. When proceeding, In Propria Persona, sui juris, One can reserve their natural common law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract that they did not enter into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. One can not be forced to accept the liability associated with any compelled and pretended "benefit" of any hidden or unrevealed contract or commercial agreement. As such, the hidden or unrevealed contracts that supposedly create obligations to perform, for persons of "subject status," are inapplicable to a private citizen/non-citizen national/national/State Citizen/national of the United States, and are null and void