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).
The financial and legal system operates on an underlying structure of trusts, often without the knowledge or consent of the individual. From the moment a person is born, various constructive, involuntary, and resulting trusts are created in their name, serving as the foundation for financial transactions, taxation, and legal obligations. This article explores how birth certificates, Social Security numbers, loans, mortgages, deeds, and other financial instruments are all rooted in a system of trusts, which many argue is a form of permissible fraud designed to control assets and labor.
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.
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
according to statutes, codes, and public policy, bills of exchange are legally recognized as currency because they discharge debt obligations in commerce. HJR 192, 31 USC 5118, and 12 USC 412 establish that debt instruments replace gold as legal payment. UCC provisions (3-603, 3-311, and 3-601) confirm that offering a bill of exchange settles debts, even if refused.
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.