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.
This case law summary highlights key legal principles on jurisdiction, standing, and procedural requirements in financial and mortgage-related cases. Courts consistently void judgments rendered without proper jurisdiction and emphasize the need for plaintiffs to demonstrate legal standing. Fraudulent lending practices, including violations of federal regulations, have led to dismissals with prejudice. Corporate overreach by banks is curtailed through rulings that prohibit lending credit and ultra vires contracts. Evidentiary standards stress the sufficiency of affidavits and the duty to disclose information to prevent fraud. Contract principles underscore the nullification of agreements based on illegal consideration
BMW of Florence and BMW of North America face serious assertions from the Brian Victor Charles Estate, including conspiracy, racketeering, and theft. Central to the case are unrebutted affidavits and the alleged unlawful repossession of a vehicle from BMW Florence’s private property.
Defendants Kevin Walker and Donnabelle Mortel, both nationals, secure a victory as a fraudulent unlawful detainer case is dismissed. They now demand and are entitled to at least $1,000,000 in legal costs, compensatory and punitive damages, and sanctions for procedural misconduct and fraud on the court. The case sets a precedent for holding plaintiffs accountable for abuse of the judicial process
Learn about the differences between "Pro Se" and "Pro Per" representation in legal matters, particularly when it comes to trust representation. "Pro Se" refers to representing oneself voluntarily within the court’s jurisdiction, while "Pro Per" allows individuals to assert their personal status and challenge court jurisdiction. This distinction highlights the power of an Affidavit of Power of Attorney In Fact, which grants an Attorney In Fact the authority to represent a trust, bypassing the need for a licensed attorney in public jurisdiction. Understand how these legal roles impact court standing and the ability to assert constitutional and contractual rights
The U.S. financial system underwent a monumental transformation due to the Emergency Banking Act of 1933, House Joint Resolution 192 (HJR 192), and key provisions of Title 31 U.S. Code, including 31 U.S.C. § 3123, § 5118, and § 5103. These legislative acts, combined with the Constructive Expansion Policy established by Congress on March 9, 1933, fundamentally reshaped the nature of currency and debt obligations in the United States. This shift not only dismantled the gold standard but also recognized negotiable instruments—including bills of exchange, bonds, and acceptances—as legal currency.
The concept of citizenship in the United States is more complex than commonly understood. Legal precedents and statutory definitions reveal a critical distinction between a "state Citizen" (also referred to as a "national") and a "citizen of the United States." This article explores this distinction, highlighting key legal authorities, statutory provisions, and judicial opinions to clarify the implications for individuals seeking to understand their legal status and rights
The journey from "American Indian" to "African American" is a deliberate and systematic reclassification rooted in colonial erasure, legal deception, and social manipulation. At the core of this identity theft is the truth that many of the so-called "Black" or "African American" people today are actually the copper-toned indigenous people native to the Americas—true American Indians. These are not descendants of slaves brought solely from Africa but rather the original inhabitants of this land, whose lineage predates Columbus and European colonization.
Through calculated reclassification, these Native Americans were stripped of their birthright, their land, and their identity. The tragedy of this historical theft continues today, as many have unknowingly abandoned their American nationality and ancestral roots to associate themselves with a foreign continent—Africa—an identity that was never theirs to begin with.
The Riverside Sheriff’s Department is facing a $1 trillion lawsuit, while the California Highway Patrol (CHP) is facing a separate $900 billion lawsuit. Both lawsuits stem from the failure of these agencies to respond to formal legal notices from Kevin Walker, resulting in the admission of guilt for allegations of fraud, racketeering, identity theft, extortion, and conspiracy. These coordinated actions by the Sheriff’s Department and CHP reflect a broader effort to weaponize legal and enforcement systems against citizens, and the lawsuits are seeking both criminal prosecution and civil restitution.
In the American legal system, a fundamental distinction exists between benefits and rights—and understanding this distinction is critical if you aim to assert sovereign status or challenge government authority. At the heart of this issue lies the principle of constitutional estoppel, reinforced by the Ashwander Rules and long-standing doctrines in equity. Simply put: When you accept a government benefit, you forfeit certain rights, including the right to challenge the law that governs that benefit.