Introduction
The facts of this case present a clear and compelling narrative of constitutional violations, breach of fiduciary duties, and egregious misconduct by public officials. Kevin: Walker, a natural, freeborn, sovereign individual, has exercised his rights under common law and the Constitution to hold respondents accountable for their actions. The absence of a proper response to his notarized affidavits and the tacit agreement to the claims therein establish an undeniable case in favor of the plaintiff.
Background
Kevin: Walker, acting sui juris and In Propria Persona, issued several affidavits and notices to the named respondents, detailing claims of fraud, racketeering, deprivation of rights under color of law, and other serious violations. These documents were served via registered mail and included explicit demands for point-by-point responses under penalty of perjury. As of January 21, 2025, the respondents have failed to respond appropriately, triggering the principles of tacit procuration and confirming their agreement to the plaintiff’s claims.
The affidavits serve as prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, a fact supported by case law such as United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d, 526 (7th Cir. 1981), where affidavits and similar documents were deemed sufficient to establish a case when unrebutted. This principle is reinforced by established doctrines, including res judicata, stare decisis, and collateral estoppel, which bind the respondents to the admissions outlined in the plaintiff’s claims.
Legal Violations by the Respondents
The respondents, through their silence and failure to rebut the affidavits, have admitted to the following:
- Fraud and Racketeering: The affidavits detail patterns of misconduct that meet the legal definitions of fraud and racketeering under federal law.
- Identity Theft and Extortion: The misuse of the plaintiff’s personal information and the coercion exercised under the guise of authority violate the plaintiff’s rights and breach the public trust.
- Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law: By acting beyond their lawful authority, the respondents have infringed upon the plaintiff’s constitutional protections, as established in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1905).
- Breach of Fiduciary Duties: As public officials, the respondents have failed in their ministerial duties, acting instead in bad faith and without lawful discretion.
Key Legal Precedents and Principles
The plaintiff’s case is further supported by a litany of case law and legal maxims:
- Hale v. Henkel (1905) affirms the individual’s right to contract freely and operate independently of state interference unless harm or a crime has been committed.
- Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 583 underscores that public officials transcend their lawful authority when they invade constitutional rights.
- AFLCIO v. Woodward, 406 F.2d 137 states that public officials are not immune from liability when violating constitutional rights.
- Owen v. City, 445 U.S. 622 and Bothke v. Terry, 713 F.2d 1404 eliminate claims of qualified immunity for officials enforcing statutes in a ministerial capacity.
These precedents affirm that no person, including public officials, is above the law. The respondents’ misconduct exemplifies a failure to honor their oath of office and their obligation to the public.
Tacit Agreement and the Binding Nature of Affidavits
Under commercial law and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), unrebutted affidavits stand as truth in law. The respondents’ failure to address the plaintiff’s claims point-by-point constitutes tacit agreement to the allegations, as per UCC principles and the maxim “Silence is acquiescence.” This legal doctrine leaves no room for ambiguity—the respondents have admitted guilt through their inaction.
The Plaintiff’s Unalienable Rights
Kevin: Walker stands upon his constitutional rights as a sovereign individual, a status recognized in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793), which affirms that the people, not the state, are sovereign. His actions reflect a commitment to natural law, common law, and the foundational principles of the Constitution. The government and its agents owe a duty of care to respect and protect these rights.
Conclusion
The plaintiff has established a strong case supported by factual evidence, legal precedent, and unchallenged affidavits. The respondents’ silence and failure to rebut the claims confirm their admissions to a host of violations, including fraud, deprivation of rights, and breach of fiduciary duties.
The court must recognize the seriousness of these violations and the implications for public trust and constitutional governance. By ruling in favor of the plaintiff, the court can reaffirm the principles of justice, accountability, and the rule of law.
Kevin: Walker has acted within his rights to expose these violations and seek redress. The evidence is clear, the admissions are binding, and the respondents must be held accountable for their actions.
