In recent legal proceedings, Judge Altman’s handling of critical commercial and financial laws has raised serious concerns. His dismissal of key sections of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and essential federal statutes, such as House Joint Resolution 192 and 18 U.S.C. § 8, undermines the integrity of the U.S. legal system. These laws are foundational to understanding the complex interplay of U.S. monetary policy, debt discharge, and commercial transactions. In this article, we will dissect the significant legal missteps in Judge Altman’s ruling, exploring the implications for commercial law, government debt obligations, and the broader judicial system.
Bare criminal statutes define unlawful behaviors and prescribe penalties such as fines or imprisonment but do not grant individuals the right to file lawsuits. These statutes are enforced exclusively by government authorities. In contrast, a private right of action allows individuals to file lawsuits for civil remedies, either explicitly or implied by courts. While criminal statutes like mail fraud or conspiracy against rights may not provide private remedies, other laws such as RICO or § 1983 may allow victims to seek civil redress. The distinction between criminal enforcement and civil remedies underscores the importance of understanding statutory rights for successful legal claims.
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.
When most people think of ZIP Codes™, they imagine a simple five-digit number designed for efficient mail delivery. However, there’s a much darker reality beneath the surface: the ZIP Code™ is actually a trademark. This legal classification holds profound implications about its origin, ownership, and use, exposing how the United States Postal Service (USPS) created and controls it as a proprietary system.More troublingly, the use of a ZIP Code™ carries far-reaching legal and commercial consequences. By including a ZIP Code™ in an address, individuals unknowingly submit themselves to federal jurisdiction, signaling their participation in a system of federally regulated commerce. Understanding this connection reveals how ZIP Codes™ function not only as logistical tools but also as instruments of control and governance, linking people to a centralized, federally managed structure.The "legal" definition of a "resident" takes on new significance in this context. In legal terms, a "resident" is not a living man or woman, but a "thing" identified and confined within a specific jurisdiction. By "identifying" as a "resident" through the use of a ZIP Code™, a living man or woman "legally" transforms into a corporate entity—an ens legis—a legal fiction. This shift in "status" by way of contract, strips the man or woman of their Sovereignty, and places them under federal authority, stripping them of their status as a living man or woman and "subjecting" them to the far-reaching control of the government.
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.
In the aftermath of the 2008 housing market crash, Operation Malicious Mortgage stood as one of the most significant federal initiatives aimed at addressing widespread mortgage fraud that fueled the crisis. Conducted between March 1 and June 18, 2008, this multi-agency operation tackled systemic corruption and fraudulent practices deeply entrenched in the mortgage and real estate industries. Spearheaded by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the effort uncovered a nationwide wave of financial crimes, resulting in 406 defendants being charged across 144 separate cases throughout the United States.
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 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.
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.
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.