™WALKERNOVA GROUP©
We are a private firm specializing in private citizen/non-citizen national/national, and State Citizen rights, Common Law, Constitutional Law, private Banking, Private & Public Law, Securities, Secured Party/Secured Creditor filings, Taxes, Debt Instruments, Foreclosure, Business, Estate Planning, UCC Contract Trusts and Law, and transactions involving a Trust, Contract, Negotiable Instrument, Deed, Bond, and/or Equity.
A right not exercised is a right lost, and benefits and privileges are not the same as rights. Living men and women are deprived “under the color of law” every day due to the complexities involved with interpreting and truly comprehending contracts, law, legalese, and the “legal”[not the same as lawful] daily use of propaganda, threats, coercion, and other unconstitutional tactics.
Some commonly misinterpreted terms: individual, bank, financial institution, person, state Citizen, national, U.S. citizen, secured party, “attorney at law” vs “attorney in fact”
LATEST NEWS
How it is a Federal Crime to “Pull Over” a Private Traveler in a Private Automobile Marked “PRIVATE”
Pulling over a man or woman traveling privately in a non-commercial automobile marked "PRIVATE" without lawful cause can constitute a violation of constitutional rights and federal law. When law enforcement applies commercial laws intended for motor vehicles to private automobiles, such actions may cross into criminal conduct and civil liability under state and federal statutes.
Understanding U.S. Courts: Jurisdictional Authority and Constitutional Origins
The U.S. judicial system operates under a dual structure of federal and state courts, each with defined jurisdiction based on
The Difference Between a Demand and a Motion in Legal and Commercial Contexts
Understanding the distinction between a demand and a motion is essential in legal and commercial matters, as each serves a different purpose and reflects the position of the party making the submission. While both terms involve asserting rights or seeking outcomes, the processes, implications, and advantages of each vary significantly. This article explores these differences in depth, outlining their roles, functions, and strategic applications.
Georgia’s Own Credit Union Faces $30 Billion DEED Fraud Scandal: Verified Evidence and Abuse of Judicial Process
The KEVIN WALKER ESTATE and WALKERNOVA GROUP l have uncovered undeniable fraud, procedural dishonor, and violations of commercial law by Georgia’s Own Credit Union, Quality Loan Service Corporation, Cenlar Federal Savings & Loan, Fidelity National Title Company, and McCarthy & Holthus, LLP. Their verified affidavits and documented evidence confirm the fraud committed and the unlawful attempts to seize property to which these entities have no legal claim.KEVIN WALKER ESTATE is demanding $30 billion in summary judgment, based on fraud, breach of contract, and violations of UCC provisions, contract law, and legal maxims. The facts are clear, and the evidence is unrebutted, demonstrating the fully admitted wrongful actions of these parties.
The Surety’s Equitable Subrogation Rights and the UCC
Exploring equitable subrogation and its independence from UCC requirements: This article addresses a bank‘s challenge claiming the UCC supplants equitable subrogation rights. Backed by case law and UCC §1-103, it confirms that subrogation arises by equity, not contract, ensuring sureties’ priority over security interests without UCC filings. Learn how federal and state courts affirm these principles and the limitations of UCC Title 9 in such contexts.
The Jurisdiction Game: How Judges Push Litigants Into Pro Se Status
When individuals step into courtrooms, they often lack a full understanding of the legal terrain. One of the most subtle and impactful dynamics at play is how judges guide litigants into pleading "pro se" without informing them of the jurisdictional implications. Many people assume representing themselves is simply a matter of declining legal counsel, but the choice between "pro se" and being "sui juris" or "in propria persona" has profound legal consequences.
Writ of Mandamus Prompts Record to be “Modified,” BUT Key Notice of Defendants’ Default, Dishonor, and Failure Still Missing from Records
In the case involving ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© ESTATE and ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© IRR TRUST Plaintiffs, acting through their Attorney-In-Fact, and Defendants, SDCCU and SHEPPARD MULLIN, significant developments have occurred in the wake of a Writ of Mandamus being submitted to Judge Roy K. Altman’s chambers and the Supreme Court of the United States. Several pivotal documents have been added to the official court record, underscoring the plaintiffs’ relentless efforts to re-affirm defendants’ dishonor, default, and willful and intentional non-compliance. However, one crucial document remains conspicuously absent from the record, further complicating the judicial process.
Pending $900 Billion Lawsuit: Stopping California Highway Patrol and Riverside Sheriff’s Unconstitutional Violation of the Right to Travel
In today’s complex legal and administrative landscape, asserting individual sovereignty and the right to travel is more important than ever. This article explores the significance of self-executing contracts and security agreements, examining their role in preserving personal freedoms, ensuring due process, and protecting fundamental rights. Using the case of ™KEVIN WALKER© ESTATE, ™KEVIN LEWIS WALKER©, ™KEVIN WALKER© IRR TRUST, represented by attorney-in-fact Kevin Walker, this piece highlights the legal principles, precedents, and doctrines underpinning these critical instruments in protecting the right to travel.This article also emphasizes that if this matter is not promptly settled, it will result in a $900,000,000,000.00 USD (billion) lawsuit filed for summary judgment as a matter of law, invoking contract law, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and legal maxims, including silent acquiescence, tacit agreement, tacit procuration, and binding contracts.
Understanding the Legal Frameworks: U.C.C., U.S.C., CFR, U.S. Constitution, Organic Constitution, and State Constitutions
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) standardizes commercial transaction laws across all U.S. states, ensuring consistency in commerce, contracts, and finance. The United States Code (USC) organizes federal statutes into 54 titles, serving as the legal foundation for areas like taxation, criminal law, and public welfare. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provides detailed rules from federal agencies to implement these statutes, defining industry-specific compliance. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law, establishing the framework for governance and safeguarding individual rights, while state constitutions address local governance and rights within the bounds of federal law. The Organic Constitution, encompassing foundational documents like the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation, offers historical context and reflects the Founders’ vision of limited federal power and state sovereignty. Together, these frameworks define the interplay between federal, state, and administrative laws.
Incoming WRIT OF MANDAMUS as Judge Roy K Altman’s Clerks Mutilate Records, Obstruct Filings, and Engage in Racketeering and Conspiracy
While the order purports to address procedural concerns, its broader implications—and the actions (or inactions) of the court—have sparked significant criticism. The case has drawn attention due to the court’s handling of filings, its potential disregard for due process, and what many perceive as a concerning lack of judicial accountability. When contacting the CLERKS in chambers to inquire about to missing filing/documents which have clearly been receiving, the clerks either refuse to provide any information or guidance on a time frame, and/or they act arrogantly and hang up in your face, telling you to "never call chambers." The clerks act as if they are above the law and they show little to no respect for the people as their public servants.
Explained: The difference between ‘Pro Se’ and ‘In Propria Persona’
While "pro se" and "in propria persona" both involve self-representation, their underlying philosophies and legal implications differ significantly.’ Pro Se’ litigants work within the framework of the court, seeking remedies and relief through statutory law. In contrast, ‘In Propria Persona‘ litigants assert their inherent rights without pleading to the court, challenging jurisdiction and emphasizing their status as a natural person. Both approaches have their place in legal contexts, but success often hinges on the individual’s ability to articulate their position effectively and navigate the complexities of the legal system. Understanding these distinctions empowers individuals to choose the approach that best aligns with their goals and principles when representing themselves in court.
$16 Billion Case Against SDCCU: Plaintiffs Demand Default, Sanctions, and Summary Judgment in Response to Judge Altman’s Order
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.
