A Strategic Legal Move: Conditional Acceptance as a Binding Contract Offer
The Kevin Walker Estate, Donnabelle Mortel Estate, WG Express Trust, and Kevin Walker IRR Trust (collectively, “Plaintiffs/Real Parties in Interest”) have escalated their legal battle by filing a Conditional Acceptance in response to Defendant PHH Mortgage Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss. This Conditional Acceptance is not merely a response—it is a binding contract offer under contract law and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
Under the terms of this Conditional Acceptance, PHH Mortgage, their counsel Neil J. Cooper, and all Defendants are required to provide verified evidence and proof to support their claims. Failure to do so will result in immediate default and dishonor, triggering the right to summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs.
The Conditional Acceptance explicitly states:
“If Neil J. Cooper, their Counsel, and Defendants fail to perform and provide Verified Evidence and proof of the above, then in accordance with contract law, established precedent, legal maxims, and fundamental principles, default and summary judgment is due immediately, as a matter of law. Plaintiffs respectfully request and demand that this Court grant summary judgment without hearing, impose sanctions against Defendants, and award One Hundred Million Dollars ($100,000,000) in legal costs and fees to Plaintiffs for defending against this frivolous, baseless, meritless, slanderous, and defamatory motion and for the egregious violations committed by Neil J. Cooper, their Counsel, and Defendants.”
This demand places Defendants in a legal and commercial bind—either they produce the required evidence or they fall into dishonor and default, making their legal position indefensible.
DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT
Defendants’ Presumption of Dishonor Under UCC § 3-505
The Conditional Acceptance further invokes UCC § 3-505, which establishes the presumption of dishonor when a party fails to meet its obligations or provide rebuttal evidence. Plaintiffs have formally documented Defendants’ non-performance through the “AFFIDAVIT CERTIFICATE of DISHONOR, NON-RESPONSE, DEFAULT, JUDGMENT, and LIEN AUTHORIZATION”/Self-Executing Contract Security Agreement (Exhibit L).
Under UCC § 3-505, dishonor is presumed when:
✅ A document regular in form states that payment or acceptance has been refused.
✅ The record shows dishonor in the usual course of business.
✅ A notarized protest is filed, identifying the instrument and certifying dishonor.
Plaintiffs’ notarized Affidavit meets all these requirements and is now a formal legal protest under UCC § 3-505. This means:
🚨 Defendants’ failure to rebut constitutes legally binding dishonor.
🚨 The court must now recognize their non-performance and default.
🚨 Under contract law, summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs is fully justified.
California Evidence Code § 664 further reinforces that unrebutted affidavits are presumed true and final, barring Defendants from contesting the established facts.
The Court’s Suspicious Actions: Missing Filings Magically Reappear
In an unexpected development, shortly after Plaintiffs electronically served the court with their Writ of Mandamus, the previously missing court filings have now mysteriously reappeared in the docket.
📌 Evidence of Judicial Manipulation:
- Plaintiffs’ filings had been conspicuously absent from the court record.
- Upon serving the Writ of Mandamus, demanding judicial accountability, the filings suddenly appeared.
- Suspiciously, the record now shows an “upload time” of 02/20/25, while the official receipt date is backdated to 02/12/25.
This raises serious concerns about procedural misconduct and record tampering. The sudden appearance of filings—after legal pressure was applied—strongly suggests deliberate obstruction or administrative manipulation to suppress Plaintiffs’ filings and delay due process.
DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT
What This Means: Legal and Ethical Violations Exposed
🚨 Court officials may have intentionally withheld filings to obstruct Plaintiffs’ case.
🚨 The legal system is failing to operate with transparency, raising questions of judicial integrity.
🚨 Plaintiffs’ filings and legal strategy forced court administrators to take action, proving their procedural misconduct.
This development validates Plaintiffs’ concerns about court irregularities and strengthens their case against not only PHH Mortgage but also potential judicial bad faith.
The Next Steps: Enforcing the Conditional Acceptance and Securing Summary Judgment
Now that Defendants have:
❌ Failed to rebut the Conditional Acceptance
❌ Fallen into dishonor under UCC § 3-505
❌ Been exposed for procedural irregularities
Plaintiffs are in a position to demand immediate legal remedies, including:
✅ Summary judgment in their favor, as Defendants have failed to meet the terms of the Conditional Acceptance.
✅ Sanctions against PHH Mortgage and Neil J. Cooper for bad faith litigation tactics.
✅ A $100,000,000 award in legal costs and damages for defending against fraudulent, slanderous, and meritless filings.
✅ Further legal action against the court if procedural fraud is confirmed.
Conclusion: A Landmark Case Unfolding in Real Time
The Kevin Walker Estate and associated Plaintiffs have masterfully exposed procedural corruption, forced Defendants into contractual dishonor, and set the stage for legal accountability at the highest levels.
This case is now a defining moment in the fight for legal and financial sovereignty, proving that:
🔹 Government agencies, corporations, and courts cannot operate outside the bounds of law.
🔹 Contract law and the UCC are powerful tools in holding entities accountable.
🔹 The legal system is being forced to confront its own procedural misconduct.
The battle for sovereignty, truth, and justice is now officially on record.
🚨 Will the courts follow the law—or expose their corruption? 🚨
Stay tuned—history is unfolding before our eyes.
