This article explores the crucial legal distinctions between a State Citizen and a U.S. citizen (14th Amendment subject) by analyzing the Supreme Court case Wong Kim Ark v. United States and the jurisdictional implications of the Buck Act of 1940. It reveals how federal jurisdiction is not based on geography, but on consent and contractual participation in federal benefit programs. Through detailed legal reasoning, it explains how one can owe allegiance to the United States as a constitutional Republic without being subject to its corporate statutory codes. The piece provides actionable remedies for rebutting federal presumptions and restoring lawful State Citizenship.
This minimalist legal graphic showcases Canon 2055 and Canon 2056, foundational principles in equity and trust law. Canon 2055 affirms that a legal fiction cannot own property, while Canon 2056 declares that unrebutted claims in the public record stand as law. The clean, centered design emphasizes the gravity and simplicity of these doctrines. Though not codified in statutory law, these canons govern how presumptions, trusts, and legal identity function within commercial and administrative systems. This image is ideal for educational or advocacy use in private law and sovereignty discussions.
When a politician accepts public office, they operate under a different legal capacity — no longer as a private State Citizen with unalienable rights, but as a U.S. citizen bound to statutory obligations. Their oath of office contracts them into fiduciary duty, placing them under administrative and commercial law, not common law. This transition subordinates natural rights in favor of public trust obligations. Under doctrines like Clearfield Trust and UCC § 1-201(27), politicians act as agents of the corporate UNITED STATES and are subject to public policy, not sovereign authority. In essence, holding office means operating as a trustee of the public, not a free individual.
This exposé reveals a coordinated RICO enterprise operating within Riverside County’s justice system, naming Sheriff Chad Bianco, DA Michael Hestrin, Commissioner Tamara L. Wagner, and others for systemic fraud, extortion, and deprivation of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It further exposes U.S. District Judge Jesus G. Bernal for judicial obstruction and record concealment, constituting willful interference in violation of federal due process. Backed by an active federal RICO lawsuit under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 before Judge Wesley Hsu, the article outlines a pattern of racketeering, forged instruments, false filings, and unlawful evictions. Officials including Pam Bondi, Rob Bonta, Kash Patel, and the FBI have been formally notified but remain silent. This is not isolated misconduct—it is organized crime under color of law. The piece stands as both public notice and evidentiary documentation for further federal action.
Charles Rogers (Bar #64530) and Jeremiah D. Raxter (Bar #276811) are engaged in an ongoing scheme of judicial fraud and racketeering in Riverside County, California. Both individuals are inactive members of the California State Bar and have no lawful authority to act as judges or commissioners. Their acts — including issuing bench warrants, signing orders, and presiding over court matters — are void ab initio and constitute federal felonies under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 1962. Their actions represent a criminal enterprise under color of law, demanding immediate investigation, disbarment, and prosecution. Public notice is hereby given that all their proceedings are fraudulent and without legal force.
Charles Rogers, Jeremiah D. Raxter, and Monika Vermani have engaged in a criminal racketeering enterprise in Riverside County, California, committing fraud, extortion, and deprivation of rights under color of law. Rogers and Raxter, both inactive and unauthorized to practice law, unlawfully acted as judicial officers, issuing void orders and illegal warrants. Vermani knowingly pursued fraudulent prosecutions despite clear constitutional violations, further implicating her under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and RICO 18 U.S.C. § 1962. Their coordinated acts constitute felonies and establish a pattern of racketeering activity subject to immediate federal civil rights and criminal actions. All fraudulent obligations have been assigned to the Treasury under UCC 1-308 and 31 U.S.C. § 3123, and full prosecution and sanctions are being pursued.
Sheriff Chad Bianco of Riverside County, District Attorney Michael Hestrin, Deputies Derrick Eastwood, Nicholas Gruwell, Robert Bowman, and associates stand in verified default for $1,000,000,000 under active federal case No. 5:25-cv-00646-WLH-MAA. Unrebutted affidavits and commercial notices confirm violations of RICO, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. Despite standing in commercial dishonor and default, Bianco is actively campaigning for Governor of California. High-level officials Pam Bondi and Kash Patel were formally notified but failed to act, compounding their exposure to Misprision of Felony. The People of California now face irrefutable evidence of systemic criminal racketeering under the false color of law by Riverside County officials.
This article explains how contracts can be formed through conduct, communication, and performance — even without a signature — under common law, equity, and the UCC. It highlights how real estate and auto sales can become legally binding when an offer is made, payment is tendered, and the other party accepts by silence or action. Citing UCC §§ 2-204, 2-206, and 1-103, the article shows how equity enforces what "ought to be done" when formalities are absent but intent and performance are clear.
Tamara L. Wagner (CA Bar #188613), a licensed attorney acting as a judicial officer in Riverside County, is now at the center of a federal removal action citing judicial fraud, civil rights violations, and RICO conspiracy. Defendants allege she is unlawfully practicing law from the bench without constitutional authority, advancing proceedings in open dishonor. Verified affidavits, UCC filings, and summary judgment demands were ignored, leading to claims of railroading and systemic court corruption. The case, removed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1443, and 1446, is now pending in federal court.
Attorney Monika Vermani (CA Bar #355080) is now publicly named in a high-profile fraud and RICO case involving Riverside County’s unlawful prosecution of a private trust estate. Verified affidavits and unrebutted commercial filings prove that Vermani is acting without jurisdiction, engaging in color of law violations, and facilitating the monetization of a private estate without consent. The filings demand $100 million in damages, dismissal with prejudice, and federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1961–1968. This case exposes systemic racketeering, securities fraud, and identity theft hidden inside routine court process.
A U.S. citizen is not an authorized representative of the United States unless specifically appointed by law, statute, or official delegation. Citizenship alone does not confer agency or authority to act on behalf of the federal government. In fact, the U.S. citizen is typically the regulated party—subject to federal jurisdiction, not acting for it. Authorized representatives must be lawfully delegated, such as officers, attorneys, or fiduciaries acting under express authority. This distinction is critical in legal, commercial, and equity contexts.
This article outlines how to convene a 12-panel grand jury when courts, counties, or prosecutors fail to act on fraud and color-of-law violations. Whether by demanding a statutory grand jury under federal law or forming a citizens’ grand jury under common law, the power lies with the people. Learn the lawful steps to initiate investigation, record findings, and serve officials with binding presentments. From Riverside County’s fraudulent title conduct to national real estate collusion, it’s time to enforce justice where the system won’t. This is remedy in real time, not theory.