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.
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.
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.
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.
The term "Sovereign Citizen" is a derogatory and weaponized label, used as propaganda to describe men or women who claim sovereignty but lack a full understanding of the legal distinctions between public and private law. As outlined in CFR § 27.11 and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, the commercial nature of all interactions is evident, yet these individuals struggle to navigate this framework correctly. They attempt to reserve their rights and operate independently but misuse terminology, failing to create unsworn declarations that comply with 28 U.S. Code § 1746. They also misunderstand critical concepts like jurisdiction, contract law, and administrative procedures. They often mix public and private law, leaving them unable to effectively assert and protect their rights as intended under UCC § 1-308. Additionally, they overlook the significance of Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution, which highlights the restrictions placed on states concerning legal tender, further emphasizing the complexities they misunderstand.
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).
A bill of exchange can function as "legal tender" or "tender of payment," but its status depends on acceptance and context but regardless, if tendered correctly, it does discharge the debt and respective amount tendered. It is a written instrument where one party (the drawer) orders another (the drawee) to pay a specific amount to a third party (the payee). While bills of exchange can be negotiable, they can also be non-negotiable, meaning they don’t always transfer ownership upon indorsement.
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) governs commercial transactions in the United States, providing a standardized set of laws for dealings involving the sale of goods, leasing of goods, negotiable instruments, secured transactions, and other commercial activities. It is one of the most important frameworks for regulating commercial law across different states.