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.
In an eye-opening legal battle involving ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© ESTATE and ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© IRR TRUST (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), whom are represented by private attorney Kevin Walker and Steven MacArthur-Brooks, the principles of unrebutted affidavits and their binding nature have taken center stage. This case exposes not only the power of silence and incompetence but also the reckless disregard for legal procedure by the Defendants and "BAR" Attorneys Shannon Peterson and Alejandro Moreno. By their own words Shannon Peterson and Alejandro Moreno and Rylan Little and San Diego County Credit Union claim God’s Law, Natural law, contract law, Trust law, the United States Code, the Uniform Commercial Code, Common law, and/or Naural Law are "meritless" and "baseless" in Southern Florida Court with Judge Roy K. Altman.
Through their actions—and inactions—the Defendants have turned what could have been a simple account setoff, settlement and full satisfaction of an obligation, into a prime example of incompetence, contempt of the law, War against the Constitution, fraud, extortion, coercion, treason, false pretenses, theft, robbery, and now even legal malpractice and dishonor.
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.
This piece explores the inherent right of individuals to practice law without a license, emphasizing that the legal system cannot monopolize this fundamental liberty. It references key court rulings affirming that the practice of law is a common right, along with the distinctions between "Attorney in Fact" and "Attorney at Law." The piece critiques the corporate nature of the United States and its impact on individual rights. Additionally, biblical teachings are invoked to underline the moral obligation to advocate for the voiceless, calling for a reclaiming of justice for all.
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.
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:
Discover the hidden connections between major institutions like Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo, and the IRS, all linked under the corporate structure of Northern Trust Corporation. Uncover how these financial giants, along with the American Bar Association, intertwine to control significant aspects of the legal and financial landscape. Explore the influence of these entities and the impact on the perception of government agencies and banks.
House Joint Resolution 192 of 1933 Public Law 73-10 and the Removal of Gold from America: a long time ago, back in 1933, the government had a big money problem. They couldn’t pay their bills, so they declared bankruptcy. To fix things, they created new rules. One of these was called Executive Order 6102, which made “U.S. citizens” turn in their gold coins and bars. In exchange, they received paper money called Federal Reserve Notes. But here’s the key part: this rule only applied to “U.S. citizens,” not to private citizens who knew they were different from that legal status.
Most people didn’t know the difference between the public and private sides of the law, so they unknowingly volunteered to give up their gold. By not understanding the difference, they became their ens legis, also known as their “straw man” “U.S. citizen,” or “trust,” or “bank,” or “corporation,” or “individual.” It is the fake version of themselves whether they consciously know it or know. The “U.S. citizen” is a “legal person” and a fiction—an entity. By volunteering to turn in their gold, these people also agreed to use Federal Reserve Notes instead of “lawful money,” which is gold and silver-backed. They entered into a contract without even realizing it, and contract is law and enforceable.
In California, the creation and existence of a debtor and creditor relationship are governed by Law, statutes, and/or case law. It could be the Uniform Commercial Code, United States Code, California Civil Code, or Commercial Code, and depends on the situation, parties, and their respective location(s). These relationships are fundamental to the legal and financial system, impacting contracts, secured transactions, and obligations.