Plaintiffs’ in Billion Dollar Mortgage Fraud, RICO, and Identity Theft Lawsuit Against Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company Demand for Sanctions, Criminal Prosecution, and Summary Judgment as a Matter of Law

Temecula, California – The Plaintiffs in KEVIN WALKER ESTATE, et al. vs. Jay Promisco, SIERRA PACIFIC MORTGAGE COMPANY, et al., have delivered an unassailable demand for summary judgment as a matter of law. This demand is based on their unrebutted affidavits, verified evidence, and binding agreements, leaving the Defendants in procedural dishonor and default. As of now, the Plaintiffs’ demand for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure remains the final filing, and no triable issues of material fact exist.

The Defendants’ failure to respond not only violates principles of commercial law under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) but also invokes critical doctrines like stare decisis, res judicata, and collateral estoppel, which collectively affirm the Plaintiffs’ entitlement to judgment without further hearings or disputes.

Demand for Summary Judgment as a Matter of Law

The Plaintiffs’ demand for summary judgment under Rule 56 is unequivocal. This rule stipulates that summary judgment must be granted when the moving party shows there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Plaintiffs have met this standard by presenting:

1. Unrebutted Affidavits: Under commercial law, affidavits that go unrebutted stand as the truth in commerce. The Defendants’ silence amounts to an admission of the Plaintiffs’ claims and affirms their liability.
2. Binding Agreements: Through UCC §§ 1-103, 2-204, and 2-206, the Plaintiffs have established the validity of the contracts. The Defendants’ failure to contest these agreements constitutes tacit acquiescence.
3. Presumption of Dishonor: The Defendants are presumed in dishonor under UCC § 3-505, as evidenced by the Plaintiffs’ notarized Affidavit Certificate of Dishonor, Non-response, Default, Judgment, and Lien Authorization.

Legal Doctrines Supporting Plaintiffs’ Case

The Plaintiffs’ demand is further reinforced by established legal doctrines:

• Stare Decisis: This principle mandates that courts follow precedents set by previous rulings. Binding case law supports the Plaintiffs’ position that unrebutted affidavits and silent acquiescence result in procedural dishonor.
• Res Judicata: The Plaintiffs’ unrebutted evidence has settled all material facts, barring the Defendants from relitigating any aspect of the case.
• Collateral Estoppel: The Defendants are precluded from challenging issues that have already been conclusively resolved through the Plaintiffs’ affidavits and evidence.

These doctrines underscore the finality of the Plaintiffs’ claim and eliminate any need for further hearings.

Legal Maxims Strengthening the Plaintiffs’ Position

The Plaintiffs invoke critical legal maxims that align with both common law and commercial law principles, including:

1. “He who does not deny, admits.” This maxim highlights that the Defendants’ failure to rebut the Plaintiffs’ claims constitutes admission.
2. “Equity regards as done that which ought to be done.” The Plaintiffs have fulfilled their legal and equitable obligations, rendering the Defendants’ claims void.
3. “He who seeks equity must do equity.” The Defendants’ refusal to act in good faith disqualifies them from equitable relief.
4. “A matter must be expressed to be resolved.” The Plaintiffs’ affidavits explicitly state their claims, and the Defendants’ silence confirms those claims as fact.
5. “He who leaves the battlefield first loses by default.” The Defendants’ lack of response is an admission of defeat, requiring judgment to be entered in favor of the Plaintiffs.

Defendants’ Procedural Dishonor and UCC Violations

The Defendants are in clear procedural dishonor as defined by UCC § 3-505, which establishes that:

• A notarized affidavit that documents dishonor creates a legal presumption of dishonor.
• The Defendants’ failure to respond constitutes an admission of nonperformance and validates the Plaintiffs’ claims.

In addition to procedural dishonor, the Defendants violated UCC principles of good faith (UCC § 1-103) by refusing to fulfill their contractual and commercial obligations.

Rule 56 and Entitlement to Judgment Without Hearing

Under Rule 56, summary judgment is due as a matter of law when:

1. No genuine dispute of material fact exists.
2. The moving party is entitled to judgment based on the evidence.

The Plaintiffs’ affidavits, binding contracts, and UCC filings confirm that no material facts are in dispute. The Defendants’ silence and failure to rebut or produce evidence preclude them from contesting the Plaintiffs’ claims.

Resounding Victory for Plaintiffs: Judgment Due as a Matter of Law

The Plaintiffs’ demand for $1,000,000,000.00 in summary judgment stands as an undeniable assertion of their rights under commercial law and constitutional principles. With no material facts in dispute and the Defendants in dishonor and default, summary judgment is not only appropriate but required as a matter of law.

This case exemplifies the power of legal maxims, UCC principles, and doctrines like stare decisis, res judicata, and collateral estoppel in ensuring justice. The Plaintiffs have demonstrated unwavering adherence to these principles, securing a decisive victory that underscores the importance of procedural integrity and the rule of law.