The term matrix, as defined across editions of Black’s Law Dictionary, is crucial in understanding legal processes, particularly in lawsuits. The matrix refers to the original draft or protocol of a legal instrument from which all copies and actions must originate. This foundational concept directly connects to lawsuits, which are inherently commercial in nature.Further, Title 27 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 72.11 explicitly classifies all crimes as commercial crimes, reinforcing the commercial framework underlying lawsuits. When combined, these concepts demonstrate how lawsuits involve a matrix that ties together all charges, claims, and related matters within a commercial context.
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.
The U.S. judicial system operates under a dual structure of federal and state courts, each with defined jurisdiction based on […]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If a judge takes an excessive amount of time to decide a case, there are multiple actions you can take, including some lesser-known or rare strategies. These options range from procedural remedies to extraordinary measures, depending on the severity of the delay and the jurisdiction. Below is a comprehensive list