A verified complaint submitted to the court functions not only as a legal pleading but also as a negotiable debt instrument and a special deposit, as established under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2041, 2042, and 2045. Additionally, it is classified as a financial asset governed by 12 U.S.C. § 1813(l)(1), 31 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(62), and 31 U.S.C. § 3302. Courts operate as depository institutions, responsible for receiving, managing, and investing funds, with all case-related deposits held in trust by the U.S. Treasury. Furthermore, under 26 U.S.C. §§ 1271-1275, a verified complaint qualifies as an Original Issue Discount (OID) security, mandating proper financial reporting. Every legal case is effectively a commercial transaction, in which funds, securities, and judgments are recorded and managed within the court’s custodial accounts. Understanding a verified complaint as a financial obligation allows for proper accounting and the reclamation of funds through the use of IRS Forms 1099-A and 1099-OID, thereby ensuring transparency and compliance with federal financial regulations.
The concept of citizenship in the United States is more complex than commonly understood. Legal precedents and statutory definitions reveal a critical distinction between a "state Citizen" (also referred to as a "national") and a "citizen of the United States." This article explores this distinction, highlighting key legal authorities, statutory provisions, and judicial opinions to clarify the implications for individuals seeking to understand their legal status and 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
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.
In legal proceedings, some parties may resort to deceptive tactics to avoid addressing the actual issues at hand. These tactics include dismissing valid arguments with vague, unsupported claims like “baseless” or “meritless” and avoiding engagement with evidence or legal references. Instead of addressing the facts, the opposing side might use emotional language, misrepresent your position, or shift the burden of proof onto you. These strategies are often employed to distract from the lack of a solid defense or to obscure the weakness of their own case. Recognizing these behaviors can help you stay focused on the core legal issues and ensure that the dispute is resolved based on merit.
The Constitution of the United States serves as the bedrock of our nation, guaranteeing unalienable rights, due process, and the supremacy of the people over the government. Yet, Sheppard Mullin, Shannon Peterson, and Blake Partridge, Junior Partner at Sastre, Saavedra & Epstein, PLLC, have demonstrated through their actions that they stand in direct opposition to these foundational principles. Their conduct represents a calculated assault on constitutional protections and the sovereignty of the American people, effectively waging war against the Constitution and its intended purpose.
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.
The U.S. judicial system operates under a dual structure of federal and state courts, each with defined jurisdiction based on […]
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.
The Fourteenth Amendment created and clarified the concept of U.S. citizenship. Before the amendment, it was widely believed and accepted […]
In this article, we explore the structure and hierarchy of law firms, highlighting the different career stages from junior attorneys to senior partners. Understanding these roles is crucial for those navigating the legal profession, as each position carries distinct responsibilities and levels of authority.