In a groundbreaking legal case, the Kevin Walker Estate has filed a $100 million claim against the Menifee Justice Center, accusing it of racketeering, conspiracy, extortion, and coercion. The claim centers on affirmed violations of House Joint Resolution 192 of 1933 (Public Law 73-10), which prohibits requiring payment in specific forms of currency, including Federal Reserve Notes. This claim is supported by an unrebutted affidavit, which, under commercial law, is legally considered truth. The case highlights constitutional concerns, including Article I, Section 10, which forbids states from impairing contractual obligations. Using principles from the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), Kevin Walker Estate asserts that the Justice Center’s failure to rebut the claims creates a self-executing contract, solidifying liability. Legal experts suggest the case could set a precedent for challenging governmental overreach in financial and legal matters. The U.S. Attorney General and the Menifee Justice Center have yet to respond, but the case could significantly influence the enforcement of HJR 192 Public Law 73-10 and individual rights protections.
When a judge takes an unreasonably long time to decide a case, there are numerous actions available to address the situation, including some uncommon or unconventional strategies. These options range from standard procedural remedies to extraordinary measures, depending on the extent of the delay and the governing jurisdiction. The following is a detailed list of potential solutions
Claiming your estate and becoming a secured party is essential not for owning assets but for controlling them privately. When you properly establish yourself as the executor, authorized representative, and trustee of the "U.S. citizen" ens legis, you gain priority control over the estate, placing a lien on all assets as evidenced by a "security agreement" in accordance with UCC 9-509. This process ensures you have legal authority over the assets tied to your estate. Here’s a comprehensive explanation:
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.
Without permission and against express written revocation of any presumed authorization to use a social security number, Rancho California Water District is acting against express instructions and blatantly committing fraud and stealing the information of Americans.
In contract disputes, parol evidence is any agreement that is not contained within the written contract. Under the parol evidence rule, these […]
Certificates of Non Citizen Nationality The Department of State occasionally receives requests for certificates of non-citizen national status pursuant to […]
In the realm of financial obligations, there is a fundamental principle that separates the tangible from the intangible, the government-created […]
The video in question showcases instances where broadcasting experienced what could be termed as “coincidental” disruptions, including segments of the […]
Intangible assets, though lacking physical form, are the bedrock of contemporary finance. They range from Federal Reserve Notes—our cash in […]