Riverside County Sheriff deputies Gregory D. Eastwood and Robert C. V. Bowman stalked national and private attorney-in-fact Kevin L. Walker through his neighborhood around the corner from his home, then arrested him on a bogus warrant and towed his Lamborghini. There is now an administrative process taking place and a pending One Trillion Dollar ($1,000,000,000,000.00) Federal conspiracy, fraud, forced peonage, and racketeering lawsuit against the deputies and the Riverside County Sheriff Department.
In a thoroughly documented and meticulously detailed legal action, the Plaintiffs—comprising ™KEVIN WALKER© ESTATE, ™DONNABELLE MORTEL© ESTATE, ™KEVIN WALKER© IRR TRUST, and ™WG EXPRESS TRUST©—collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs," assert their unequivocal standing as undisputed creditors, holders in due course, and authorized executors of both tangible and intangible assets. The Plaintiffs’ claims rest on unrebutted affidavits and indisputable contractual evidence, which stand as established truth in commerce and are conclusively binding under the principles of res judicata, stare decisis, and collateral estoppel.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and equity law provide distinct frameworks for resolving disputes and enforcing obligations. Equity law focuses on fairness and flexibility, often stepping in when strict legal rules lead to unjust outcomes. Conversely, the UCC brings structure and predictability to commercial transactions while incorporating equitable principles to ensure fairness in its application. This article explores how the UCC integrates equity, examines the strengths and weaknesses of each system, and highlights key provisions like UCC §§ 1-103, 2-202, 2-203, 2-204, 2-206, 2-302, 3-303, 3-311, 3-603, 3-604, and others.
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) provides a structured legal framework for negotiable instruments, obligations, and their discharge. Among its provisions, sections like UCC §§ 3-303, 3-604, 3-104, 3-409, 2-206, and 1-103 reveal a clear foundation for the Accepted for Value (A4V) process. This process allows obligations such as mortgages, loans, or other debts to be addressed through lawful mechanisms of discharge, settlement, or setoff.
West Coast Exotic Cars, along with Eric Curran, Aaron Johnson, Hunter, and additional staff, are embroiled in a $1 billion […]