Judgement for over $13 Billion Appears Imminent as Defendants SDCCU and Sheppard Mullin Remain in Dishonor and Default
In the intricate world of civil litigation, few tools wield as much influence as summary judgment. Designed to streamline the resolution of cases where no genuine dispute of material fact exists, this procedural mechanism serves to bring clarity and efficiency to the legal process. In this context, the Plaintiffs, ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© ESTATE and ™STEVEN MACARTHUR-BROOKS© IRR TRUST, have filed a motion for summary judgment against the Defendants.
What sets this case apart are the unrebutted verified commercial affidavits submitted by the Plaintiffs—documents that stand as irrefutable evidence in the absence of contestation. Stare decisis and collateral estoppel bar the Defendants from even contesting the judgment, making it a legal inevitability that the judgment must be granted. By combining established legal principles, statutory authority, and procedural precision, the Plaintiffs demonstrate how the truth, when presented in accordance with the rule of law, demands enforcement and judicial acknowledgment.
This article explores the legal framework, foundational principles, and specific details underpinning the Plaintiffs’ motion, offering a comprehensive analysis of how unrebutted affidavits compel the granting of summary judgment as a matter of law.
At the heart of the Plaintiffs’ motion are three (3) verified commercial affidavits, self-executing contract security agreements that affirm all material facts outlined in the Verified Complaint. The principle that “An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth” underscores their case. Legal maxims such as:
- An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce.
- He who leaves the battlefield first loses by default.
- An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in commerce.
These principles, supported by precedents like Winsett v. Donaldson and Sieb’s Hatcheries, Inc. v. Lindley, illustrate that silence in response to an affidavit is tantamount to admission of its truth.
Legal Maxims and Precedent
The Plaintiffs’ position is reinforced by fundamental legal doctrines:
- Equality Under the Law
As established in Hurtado v. California, the state cannot diminish the rights of the people. Plaintiffs assert their rights under natural, moral, and statutory law. - The Sovereignty of Truth in Commerce
Unchallenged affidavits, being expressions of truth, hold absolute authority in commerce and law. - Accountability of Public Officials
In cases like AFLCIO v. Woodward, courts affirm that public officials are not immune from liability when they overstep lawful authority.
Silence Equals Acquiescence: Defendants’ Tacit Agreement
The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants’ failure to rebut or provide evidence constitutes tacit acquiescence under the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) and established legal maxims. Silence, under U.C.C. § 2-206 and U.C.C. § 1-103, is treated as non-performance and dishonor, confirming Plaintiffs’ claims of breach of contract, fraud, and more.
Key Doctrines:
- Stare Decisis and Res Judicata: Judicial precedent bars Defendants from revisiting admitted facts.
- Collateral Estoppel: Admitted facts cannot be disputed in subsequent proceedings.
Affirmation of Dishonor and Default
Plaintiffs present notarized evidence, including the Affidavit Certificate of Dishonor, Non-Response, Default, Judgment, and Lien Authorization (#RF204463888US), to solidify their position. This document, compliant with U.C.C. § 3-505, serves as:
- Evidence of dishonor due to Defendants’ failure to rebut.
- Confirmation of Defendants’ liability and tacit agreement to Plaintiffs’ terms.
The Defendants’ silence, combined with their lack of performance under contract law and U.C.C. provisions, establishes their continued dishonor and default.
Conclusion
The Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment exemplifies the strategic use of procedural law and unrebutted affidavits. By leaving no material fact in dispute, the Plaintiffs demonstrate that Defendants’ silence equates to acquiescence and default.
Through this action, Plaintiffs have not only advanced their claims but reaffirmed the legal maxim: “He who leaves the battlefield first loses by default.” In the absence of any rebuttal, the Plaintiffs stand poised for a decisive victory that upholds the sanctity of truth in commerce.
