Jurisdictional Implications and Differences: “Pro Se” and “Pro Per”

Categories
Business, Education, Intangibles, Law/Legal, News, Remedy, Securities, Sovereigns

"Pro Se" denotes voluntarily representing oneself within the court’s jurisdiction, thereby consenting to its authority and procedures. In contrast, "Pro Per" allows individuals to assert their personal status and directly challenge the court’s jurisdiction, avoiding representation as a legal fiction. This distinction underscores the significance of an Affidavit of Power of Attorney In Fact, which empowers an Attorney In Fact to represent a trust without requiring a licensed attorney in the public jurisdiction. Understanding these legal roles is crucial in navigating court standing and asserting constitutional and contractual rights effectively.

Bill of Exchange ‘Evidenced’ as “Currency” by 31 USC 5118, 12 USC 412, UCC 3-601, 3-603, 3-311, and HJR 192 of 1933 (public law 73-10)

Categories
Business, Constitution, Education, Intangibles, Law/Legal, News, Realworldfare, Remedy, Securities, Sovereigns, Strawman/Artifical Entity/Legal Fiction, Trust, Wealth

Under statutes, codes, and public policy, bills of exchange are legally recognized as currency since they discharge debt obligations in commerce. HJR 192, 31 USC 5118, and 12 USC 412 establish that debt instruments have replaced gold as legal payment. UCC provisions (3-603, 3-311, and 3-601) affirm that presenting a bill of exchange settles debts, even if rejected.

Riverside County Sheriff in Default and All Allegations now Admitted and Confirmed Facts including Racketeering, Conspiracy, Kidnapping, Coercion, Extortion, and more in Trillion Dollar ‘Right to Travel’ Lawsuit

Categories
Business, Constitution, Education, Intangibles, Law/Legal, News

The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, including Deputies Gregory D. Eastwood, Robert C. V. Bowman, William Pratt, and George Reyes, stands in legal default for failing to respond to a formal notice of conditional acceptance and affidavit from Kevin Walker. Under contract law, common law, and principles of fairness, an unrebutted affidavit is deemed conclusive truth. The Sheriff’s Department’s lack of response now confirms all allegations against them as true and legally binding. By their own failure to respond and express silent agreement, the Sheriff’s Department has tacitly admitted to allegations of fraud, racketeering, identity theft, extortion, coercion, and conspiracy to deprive rights under the color of law. This result stems from their refusal to comply with the required legal processes under UCC § 3-505, which presumes dishonor in such circumstances.