SDCCU and SHEPPARD MULLIN Hit with $2.975 Billion Motion/Demand for Summary Judgement as “a matter of law”
Conditional Acceptance, Federal Jurisdiction, Unrebutted Affidavits
The Verified Motion from the Plaintiffs is predicated on a clear conditional acceptance of the Defendants’ Notice of Removal. This acceptance includes conditions requiring the Defendants to demonstrate that the matters in question have not been settled under legal doctrines such as res judicata, stare decisis, and collateral estoppel. The Plaintiffs emphasize that they possess three unrebutted affidavits from the initial complaint (Exhibits C, D, and E), affirming these affidavits as factual and legally binding. The Defendants’ failure to rebut these statements unequivocally renders them uncontested and thus, true.
AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT STANDS AS TRUTH IN COMMERCE. (12 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15) — “He who does not deny, admits.” The Plaintiffs reiterate that, according to contract law, a conditional acceptance creates a binding agreement. By not responding, the Defendants have effectively consented to the factual assertions within these affidavits.
AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT BECOMES THE JUDGMENT IN COMMERCE. (Heb. 6:16-17) — “There is nothing left to resolve.” The Plaintiffs affirm that summary judgment is justified “as a matter of law” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(a), which mandate summary judgment when no genuine dispute exists concerning material facts. The unrebutted affidavits eliminate any factual disputes, thereby entitling the Plaintiffs to judgment as a matter of law. This is supported by statutes that specify when uncontroverted evidence is presented, the court must take action to uphold the law.
HE WHO LEAVES THE BATTLEFIELD FIRST LOSES BY DEFAULT. (Book of Job; Mat. 10:22) — Legal maxim: “He who does not repel a wrong when he can occasions it.”
IN COMMERCE, TRUTH IS SOVEREIGN. (Exodus 20:16; Ps. 117:2; John 8:32; II Cor. 13:8) — Truth reigns supreme, and the Sovereign speaks only the truth.
DOWNLOAD FILE
Affidavits as Binding Evidence
The Plaintiffs assert that these affidavits, having gone unrebutted and thus accepted by the Defendants, represent conclusive, irrefutable truth in this case. TRUTH IS EXPRESSED IN THE FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT. (Lev. 5:4-5; Lev. 6:3-5; Lev. 19:11-13; Num. 30:2; Mat. 5:33; James 5:12). Established precedents such as Winsett v. Donaldson and Sieb’s Hatcheries, Inc. v. Lindley support the notion that unrebutted affidavits are admissions of truth. Consequently, no further action or argument is necessary, as these affidavits have become legally uncontested evidence in this case. Furthermore, doctrines like stare decisis and collateral estoppel inhibit any re-litigation of these established facts.
No Stipulation to Arbitration, UCC § 2-202, and the Parole Evidence Rule
It has also been confirmed that no stipulation to arbitration exists in this case. The actions taken by the Defendants, including their attempts to introduce new stipulations, lack legal relevance concerning the binding nature of the three unrebutted affidavits. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2-202 prohibits the introduction of external agreements that contradict a finalized written agreement, which, in this situation, is constituted by the conclusive statements of fact provided by the affidavits. Additionally, the parol evidence rule further strengthens the position that no extrinsic evidence can be used to alter or contradict the terms outlined in the written affidavits, thereby affirming their role as binding and conclusive evidence in this matter.
Specific Defendants’ Misconduct
The Plaintiffs have identified Shannon Petersen and Alejandro Moreno for specific violations of Rule 84 of the BAR, asserting that these individuals have violated fundamental legal principles, including House Joint Resolution 192 (Public Law 73-10). IN COMMERCE, FOR ANY MATTER TO BE RESOLVED, IT MUST BE EXPRESSED. (Heb. 4:16; Phil. 4:6; Eph. 6:19-21) — Legal maxim: “To lie is to go against the mind.” The records indicate that the disregard shown by Petersen and Moreno towards these principles has resulted in unwarranted delays in litigation, as evidenced by Exhibits Q, R, S, and T, which substantiate the Defendants’ refusal to adhere to legal protocols.
Per Rule 84: Misconduct: It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or act through the acts of another; (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; (e) state or imply an ability to improperly influence a government agency or official or achieve results through means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; (f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law; or (g) engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, or socioeconomic status in relation to the practice of law. This provision does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline, or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16 and does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these Rules.
