Article III Courts Protecting Equity, Enforcing Affidavits, and Upholding Rights

Article III Courts: Protecting Equity, Enforcing Affidavits, and Upholding Rights

Article III courts, established under the U.S. Constitution, are essential for protecting rights in civil contract disputes involving unrebutted affidavits. They uphold due process guaranteed by the Constitution, recognize uncontested evidence, and offer both legal and equitable remedies. With exclusive equity jurisdiction, these courts can enforce obligations, issue injunctions, and affirm binding agreements, ensuring justice and constitutional compliance

1. Constitutional Protections

  • Judicial Independence: Article III judges, appointed for life with salary protections, are independent and insulated from political or administrative pressures. This guarantees impartiality in their decision-making process.
  • Due Process Rights: These courts are constitutionally bound to uphold procedural and substantive due process rights, ensuring that all parties have a fair opportunity to present evidence, challenge opposing claims, and seek meaningful relief.

2. Enforcement of Unrebutted Affidavits as Evidence

  • Legal Standing of Affidavits: Under long-standing legal principles, an unrebutted affidavit can stand as truth in both law and commerce. When one party fails to rebut specific claims stated under oath in an affidavit, the affidavit may become binding as a matter of fact.
  • Commercial and Legal Implications: Courts often treat an unrebutted affidavit as the equivalent of a contract or declaration of rights if it is properly served and uncontested.
  • Scrutiny Against Dismissals: An Article III court is less inclined to dismiss claims that are backed by uncontested evidence, including affidavits. These courts adhere to evidentiary standards that respect the probative value of unrebutted affidavits.

Screen Shot 2025 02 08 at 9.16.53 AM

3. Jurisdiction in Law, Equity, and Exclusive Equity

Article III courts have the authority to provide both legal and equitable remedies, unlike administrative or statutory tribunals limited to statutory provisions. The distinction between law and equity, along with the unique concept of exclusive equity jurisdiction, is crucial in contract and affidavit disputes.

  • Equity Jurisdiction: Courts operating in equity are empowered to provide remedies when legal remedies (such as monetary damages) are inadequate or inappropriate. Equity focuses on fairness, good conscience, and justice. In the case of an unrebutted affidavit forming a contract or obligation, equitable relief may compel the opposing party to honor the terms or prevent unjust dismissal.
  • Exclusive Equity Jurisdiction: Exclusive equity arises when a court is required to provide relief in cases where no corresponding legal remedy exists. This could involve:
    • Injunctions: To prevent a party from dismissing or interfering with the terms established by an unrebutted affidavit.
    • Specific Performance: Requiring the enforcement of obligations outlined in the affidavit.
    • Declaratory Relief: Officially affirming the legal standing of the affidavit as binding evidence.

Courts exercising exclusive equity can issue orders that compel performance, recognize tacit acquiescence, and ensure that justice is done in situations where legal remedies fall short.

4. Protection Against Unilateral Dismissal of Claims

  • Higher Evidentiary Standards: Unlike Article I administrative tribunals, which often favor dismissals based on technicalities, Article III courts adhere to strict evidentiary rules. They assess the substantive merits of a case, ensuring that valid and uncontested evidence (such as an unrebutted affidavit) receives due consideration.
  • Balancing Fairness: Courts sitting in equity prioritize fairness and may prevent opposing parties from abusing procedural loopholes to dismiss legitimate claims.

5. Upholding Contractual and Commercial Rights

  • Contracts as Law Between Parties: Article III courts recognize that agreements, including those evidenced by affidavits, are binding if they meet legal and evidentiary standards. Courts are obligated to uphold these agreements when entered voluntarily and without coercion.
  • Equitable Estoppel: A party that has remained silent or failed to rebut an affidavit may be estopped from later contesting its validity, a principle firmly recognized in equity.

Conclusion

An Article III court’s jurisdiction in both law and equity, along with its ability to exercise exclusive equity, makes it a critical forum for protecting a national’s rights in civil contract disputes involving unrebutted affidavits. Its constitutional authority ensures that due process is followed, valid evidence is respected, and equitable remedies are available to uphold justice and prevent the infringement of rights.

Leave your vote

73679 points
More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

PHH Mortgage Corporation's Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. is a glaring example of procedural misconduct, constitutional violations, and a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice. The Plaintiffs have conditionally accepted PHH Mortgage’s non-compliant filing, thereby tendering a binding counteroffer that PHH must now rebut. PHH’s continued silence and failure to rebut the conditional acceptance further compounds their non-performance and dishonor. Additionally, the Defendants’ filing violates multiple-defendant court rules, misrepresents the law, displays incompetence and a war against the Constitution, and constitutes blatant obstruction of justice.

KEVIN WALKER ESTATE’S Conditional Acceptance Exposes PHH Mortgage’s Motion as Procedurally Defective, Deceitful and Dishonest, Unconstitutional, and Legally Void

PHH Mortgage Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. is a glaring example of procedural misconduct, constitutional violations, and a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice. The Plaintiffs have conditionally accepted PHH Mortgage’s non-compliant filing, thereby tendering a binding counteroffer that PHH must now rebut. PHH’s continued silence and failure to rebut the conditional acceptance further compounds their non-performance and dishonor. Additionally, the Defendants’ filing, prepared by Neil J. Cooper of HOUSER LLP, violates multiple-defendant court rules, misrepresents the law, displays incompetence and a war against the Constitution, and constitutes blatant obstruction of justice.

Further exacerbating this obstruction, critical documents remain missing from the court docket and record, preventing a full and fair adjudication of the Plaintiffs’ claims. This deliberate suppression of filings by the court and Defendants undermines due process, conceals key evidence, and constitutes judicial misconduct. The failure to properly record and acknowledge Plaintiffs’ filings further demonstrates systematic efforts to manipulate the proceedings in PHH Mortgage’s favor, reinforcing the need for immediate judicial correction, sanctions, and enforcement of Plaintiffs’ default judgment demands.

Judicial Misconduct in Riverside, California: Defendant PHH Mortgage's ("loan servicer") Baseless Motion and the Court’s Obstruction of Justice

Judicial Misconduct in Riverside, California: Defendant PHH Mortgage’s (“loan servicer”) Baseless Motion and the Court’s Obstruction of Justice

PHH Mortgage’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. exemplifies judicial overreach, procedural abuse, and a blatant disregard for constitutional rights. The motion falsely asserts that a trust cannot be represented by an attorney-in-fact, denying individuals their right to self-representation and claiming that only "attorneys at law" can act in court. This contradicts established legal principles, including the American Bar Association’s recognition of power of attorney as a legitimate instrument granting broad authority. Additionally, the court has obstructed the record by refusing to file Plaintiffs’ documents, prompting a writ of mandamus to expose the Riverside Federal Court’s misconduct. This case underscores a broader pattern of legal corruption, defamation, and deprivation of rights under the color of law.

Screen Shot 2025 02 19 at 1.22.22 PM

KEVIN WALKER Estate Demands Writ of Mandamus as Riverside Federal Court Engages in Corruption, Record Tampering, and Obstruction of Justice

The United States District Court, Central District of California (Riverside), stands accused of obstructing justice, tampering with records, and violating due process by unlawfully refusing to file and docket legitimate pleadings. Plaintiffs KEVIN WALKER ESTATE, et al., hav presented irrefutable evidence of judicial misconduct, calling for criminal prosecution, sanctions, and immediate enforcement. Despite proof of receipt, court officials have concealed filings, manipulated records, and obstructed legal proceedings, in direct violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512, 1519, and 2071. With Pam Bondi CC’d on the correspondence, high-level authorities have been alerted to this grave constitutional violation that threatens judicial integrity and fundamental rights.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.

error: Content is protected !!