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.
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 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.
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 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.