In a decisive move to hold the Defendants accountable for their ongoing misconduct and failure to comply with court orders, the Plaintiffs have filed a "SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIRMATION OF RECORD, NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS’ CONTINUED DISHONOR, DEFAULT, AND WILLFUL NONCOMPLIANCE, AND REQUEST [DEMAND] FOR SANCTIONS, SUMMARY JUDGEMENT, AND RELIEF" in the ongoing litigation before Judge Roy K. Altman. This filing underscores the Plaintiffs’ determination to secure justice and highlights the Defendants’ blatant disregard for the legal process, affirming the legal basis for sanctions, default judgment, and summary judgment in the Plaintiffs’ favor.
The intersection of law, contracts, and public administration reveals a vast framework where the government can exercise control over individuals, often under the guise of legality. By leveraging tools like propaganda, social security numbers (SSNs), and implied agreements, the government establishes a framework of public compliance while presenting an illusion of choice. This system is designed to manage public obligations, regulate access to benefits, and ensure participation in federal programs. To understand how this operates, one must examine the roles of propaganda, coercive tactics, contracts, and the critical significance of the SSN.
The United States legal system is composed of interconnected frameworks, each serving specific purposes. This breakdown explores their distinct roles and how they interrelate:
When handling a BILL (Bill of Exchange) or NOTE (Promissory Note), applying principles from the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.), federal statutes, and historical resolutions ensures a secure and lawful process to establish control, discharge debts, and enforce obligations
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.
In the realm of civil litigation, summary judgment serves as a powerful procedural tool to resolve cases where there is no genuine dispute of material fact. Plaintiffs, ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© ESTATE and ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© IRR TRUST, have invoked this mechanism to propose an Order Granting Summary Judgment against Defendants. Their claim is fortified by well-established legal principles, an unassailable record of unrebutted affidavits, and adherence to statutory and procedural rules.
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…
The Plaintiffs, ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© ESTATE and ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© IRR TRUST, have formally responded to the Defendant’s Notice of Removal by […]
Under CFR 72.11, commercial crimes include offenses like counterfeiting, fraud, and other violations affecting financial institutions, categorized under both federal and state law. These crimes, even if lacking a direct "corpus delicti" or identifiable victim, are treated as commercial offenses due to their impact on economic systems and public revenue. The Commerce Clause grants federal jurisdiction over these offenses, reinforcing protections for financial transactions and commercial stability. This legal framework emphasizes the commercial nature of crimes impacting interstate commerce, ensuring a unified approach to regulation and enforcement.
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.