Equitable Subrogation along with Natural Law and Trust Law is the Remedy to Stop the Unjust Enrichment. It is for the "Restitution" of our Private God Given Rights which is our PROPERTY. Subrogation means "Substitution". That’s what the Banksters and the Fictional "STATE" did to our Mothers when they were "deceived" into "Registering" our PROPERTY — Our Equitable Rights and Remedies were Subrogated/Substituted.
This guide explains how credit processing mechanisms like IRS Form 1041, Form 1042, and UCC filings allow for lawful deduction, refund claims, and debt discharge. You’ll learn how to use bad debt deductions under IRC §453, how to treat 1099-OID and 1099-B income, and how structured deposits to banks may qualify as lawful credit tenders. Designed for trusts, estates, and foreign or ecclesiastical entities, this strategy aligns contract law, tax law, and commercial paper. Explore how to convert paper obligations into lawful credits and reclaim financial standing.
Discover how loan servicers exploit non-judicial foreclosure to force unauthorized sales—even during active administrative procedures. Learn why a Trustee’s Deed of Sale issued without proper authority is void ab initio, and how it merely transfers a lien, not lawful title. This article explains how placing your home in a private trust protects your property, and how fraud—having no statute of limitations—can render any sale legally null.
Uncover how the principle of full faith and credit positions you as the true creditor behind the financial system. Dive into essential legal foundations such as the U.S. Constitution, 18 U.S.C. § 8, 31 U.S.C. § 5118, and the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, exposing how your trust and credit back all public obligations. Understand how the U.S. operates as a commercial entity under the Clearfield Doctrine, and how debts are lawfully discharged through the U.S. Treasury. Empower yourself with this knowledge and reclaim your rightful position within the system.
PHH Mortgage’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. exemplifies judicial overreach, procedural abuse, and a blatant disregard for constitutional rights. The motion falsely asserts that a trust cannot be represented by an attorney-in-fact, denying individuals their right to self-representation and claiming that only "attorneys at law" can act in court. This contradicts established legal principles, including the American Bar Association’s recognition of power of attorney as a legitimate instrument granting broad authority. Additionally, the court has obstructed the record by refusing to file Plaintiffs’ documents, prompting a writ of mandamus to expose the Riverside Federal Court’s misconduct. This case underscores a broader pattern of legal corruption, defamation, and deprivation of rights under the color of law.
Corruption within the judicial system, including fraudulent accounting, improper banking practices, and organized crime, poses a severe threat to justice and financial stability. Fortunately, whistleblowers have powerful tools at their disposal to report such misconduct to the Department of the Treasury – Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Two of the most effective mechanisms for exposing financial fraud involving corrupt courts, clerks, judges, and officials are IRS Form 3949-A (Information Referral) and IRS Form 211 (Application for Award for Original Information).
"Pro Se" denotes voluntarily representing oneself within the court’s jurisdiction, thereby consenting to its authority and procedures. In contrast, "Pro Per" allows individuals to assert their personal status and directly challenge the court’s jurisdiction, avoiding representation as a legal fiction. This distinction underscores the significance of an Affidavit of Power of Attorney In Fact, which empowers an Attorney In Fact to represent a trust without requiring a licensed attorney in the public jurisdiction. Understanding these legal roles is crucial in navigating court standing and asserting constitutional and contractual rights effectively.
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.
Steven MacArthur Brooks’ estate has filed a $2.975 billion lawsuit against San Diego County Credit Union, asserting a binding contract and seeking summary judgment. The lawsuit emphasizes the plaintiffs’ status as secured creditors under UCC provisions, supported by unrebutted affidavits and evidence of contractual acceptance. The case centers on a contract and security agreement, with claims of non-response from defendants validating the demand for summary judgment as a matter of law.
The Fourteenth Amendment created and clarified the concept of U.S. citizenship. Before the amendment, it was widely believed and accepted […]
Explore the secret ties between major entities like Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo, and the IRS, all controlled under Northern Trust Corporation. Learn how these financial powerhouses, alongside the American Bar Association, work together to dominate the legal and financial systems. Delve into their interconnected influence and how it shapes the role of government agencies and banks in America. Uncover the truth behind this corporate web and its impact on society.
When a purported borrower takes out a loan from a bank, it may appear that the bank is lending its own money. However, under 12 U.S.C. § 83, banks are prohibited from lending their own funds. Instead, they use the purported borrower’s promissory note as collateral to create credit, not using their own capital. This process lacks transparency, leading to non-disclosure and fraud, which may render such agreements void ab initio (invalid from the outset).