The case of Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. Jay Promisco, PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. reveals systemic corruption, legal incompetence, and judicial misconduct. PHH Mortgage, led by attorney Neil J. Cooper, has engaged in fraud, obstruction, and misrepresentation, while the Riverside Federal Court has actively suppressed key filings. Plaintiffs have filed a Verified Demand for criminal enforcement, sanctions, and summary judgment, exposing PHH’s baseless legal tactics. The overturning of the Chevron Doctrine further invalidates PHH’s arguments, proving bad faith litigation. This case is a critical fight against judicial corruption, demanding accountability, due process, and legal sanctions.
PHH Mortgage’s Motion to Dismiss exemplifies judicial overreach, defamation, and procedural misconduct, falsely asserting that a trust cannot be represented by an attorney-in-fact. The motion mischaracterizes legal arguments, obstructs court records, and suppresses due process rights under the color of law. Plaintiffs have challenged this abuse through a writ of mandamus, exposing court manipulation and fraud.
A consumer debtor under UCC § 9-102 is a public entity and debt-transmitting utility vehicle, not a sovereign individual. As an ens legis, the consumer functions as a debtor in a system where all transactions are based on debt, per public law and policy. Since the removal of gold-backed currency (HJR-192, 1933), consumers operate within a commercial framework where assets are collateralized, not owned outright. This distinction separates the legal fiction (U.S. citizen) from the living man or woman, reinforcing the commercial nature of all consumer transactions.
President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that he has directed the Justice Department to immediately terminate all remaining Biden-era U.S. attorneys, affirming that the department had been politicized like never before under the previous administration."We must ‘clean house’ IMMEDIATELY and restore confidence. America’s Golden Age must have a fair Justice System – THAT BEGINS TODAY," Trump declared
Federal statutes strictly prohibit judges, U.S. marshals, and court clerks from engaging in the practice of law or any outside employment that interferes with their official duties. These restrictions are designed to ensure judicial impartiality, prevent conflicts of interest, and uphold public trust in the legal system.
The United States District Court, Central District of California (Riverside), is facing serious allegations of obstruction of justice, record tampering, and due process violations for refusing to file and docket lawful pleadings. Plaintiffs KEVIN WALKER ESTATE, et al. have presented undisputable evidence of obstruction, fraud, and misconduct, and Plaintiffs are demanding criminal prosecution, sanctions, and immediate enforcement. Despite documented receipt of filings, Riverside U.S. District Court and Clerk and other officials have concealed records and manipulated the judicial process, violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512, 1519, and 2071. With Pam Bondi CC’d on the correspondence, high-level authorities are now aware of this constitutional crisis threatening judicial transparency and fundamental rights
The U.S. legal system presumes every man or woman to be a decedent or minor in commerce until they claim their securities under 31 CFR § 363.6, effectively placing their estate under government control. Title 26 U.S.C. §§ 7603, 6903, and 6036 establish that no public servant can act upon an estate without proper fiduciary authorization. This article breaks down how statutes like 31 U.S.C. § 1321 and 26 U.S.C. § 2203 confirm the necessity of asserting one’s legal standing to prevent unlawful interference with an estate. Understanding these laws is crucial for reclaiming control over one’s financial and legal status
A verified complaint filed in court serves not only as a legal pleading but also as a negotiable debt instrument and a special deposit under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2041, 2042, and 2045, as well as a financial asset governed by 12 U.S.C. § 1813(l)(1), 31 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(62), and 31 U.S.C. § 3302. Courts function as depository institutions that receive, manage, and invest funds, with all case-related deposits held in trust by the U.S. Treasury. Under 26 U.S.C. §§ 1271-1275, a verified complaint also qualifies as an Original Issue Discount (OID) security, requiring proper financial reporting. Every case represents a commercial transaction, where funds, securities, and judgments are accounted for within the court’s custodial accounts. Recognizing a verified complaint as a financial obligation enables proper accounting and reclamation of funds through IRS Forms 1099-A and 1099-OID, ensuring transparency and compliance with federal financial laws.
In the world of finance and law, silence equals acquiescence. When you send an affidavit stating the facts surrounding a debt and the other party fails to rebut it, the debt is legally and commercially considered agreed upon as stated. If a full administrative process has been completed—culminating in an Affidavit Certificate of Non-Response in accordance with UCC § 3-505, the debt can be classified as uncollectible. Under IRS Topic No. 453 (Bad Debt Deduction), you can then legally write off the debt and, in some cases, recover the amount as a credit—similar to a 1099-C (Cancellation of Debt).
Expose judicial corruption and financial misconduct using IRS Forms 3949-A and 211. These powerful tools allow whistleblowers to report fraudulent accounting, money laundering, and organized crime within courts, ensuring accountability through federal enforcement. Learn how to file and potentially receive financial rewards for uncovering large-scale corruption.
In a monumental legal development, the Kevin Walker Estate v. Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company case has been removed to federal court and initially assigned to a U.S. Magistrate Judge. However, the Kevin Walker Estate has declined to consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate and formally filed a "Plaintiffs’ Notice of Decline of Consent to Be Heard by a Magistrate Judge and Demand for an Article III Judge." This demand underscores the Plaintiffs’ assertion of their constitutional right to adjudication by a lifetime-appointed federal judge under Article III of the U.S. Constitution
An Article III court provides essential protections in civil contract disputes involving unrebutted affidavits. It ensures due process, enforces uncontested evidence, and offers both legal and equitable remedies. With exclusive equity jurisdiction, these courts can compel performance, issue injunctions, and affirm binding agreements, safeguarding constitutional rights and justice.