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.
Van Ballion (Nigel Turner), a UK-based content creator, and Michael J. Gravlin, an attorney at law behind the channel Law Talks with Mike, are accused by critics of actively undermining the constitutional rights of Americans. Their content spreads misinformation, misrepresents legal concepts, and wages smear campaigns against non-citizen nationals/nationals and state Citizens who assert their lawful rights and expect Constitutional security and protection. Michael Gravlin’s role as an officer of the court raises concerns about ethical violations, as his platform reportedly labels Americans with disparaging terms such as "Sov Cits" to maliciously disprage and undermine their legal advocacy. Van Ballion, despite lacking ties to the U.S. legal system, interferes in American civic discourse through malicious, dispraging, and harmful commentary. The KEVIN WALKER ESTATE is now preparing to sue YouTube, Turner, and Gravlin for malicious defamation, libel, and conspiracy to undermine lawful discourse, conspiracy and racketerring against the people of America. Americans seeking to protect their rights or who have been defamed are encouraged to assert their rights and seek redress.
The Plaintiffs in KEVIN WALKER ESTATE, et al. vs. SIERRA PACIFIC MORTGAGE COMPANY, et al. have delivered an unchallenged demand for One Billion Dollars in default and summary judgment under Rule 56, citing unrebutted affidavits, binding agreements, and procedural dishonor by the Defendants. The Defendants’ silence invokes legal doctrines like stare decisis, res judicata, and collateral estoppel, affirming the Plaintiffs’ entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Supported by UCC §§ 1-103, 2-204, 2-206, and 3-505, this case highlights the power of legal maxims and commercial law in ensuring justice. With no genuine dispute of material fact, the Plaintiffs’ claim remains final and enforceable without a hearing
A Bill of Exchange, governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), serves as legal tender for settling tax obligations and debts. Under 31 U.S.C. § 5103, these instruments, including Bonds and Notes created by U.S. citizens or nationals, are considered United States currency. The IRS is obligated to accept such instruments for payment, and any refusal or failure to return a defective instrument provides grounds for discharging the debt, as outlined in UCC 3-603, 3-311, and 3-601. Additionally, HJR 192 of 1933 (public law 73-10) removes the necessity of paying debts in gold or silver, OR a particular kind of coin or currency, reinforcing the acceptance of other forms of legal tender. This is further supported by 31 U.S.C. § 5118, which affirms that negotiable instruments are valid legal tender.
Judges, contrary to popular belief, are not above the law and can be held personally accountable when they act outside their constitutional authority, violate rights, or engage in misconduct. Through legal principles like the Clearfield Doctrine and statutes such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983, individuals have clear pathways to seek redress. Everything in the "public" is commercial thus those are "commercial" transactions, Congress regulates "interstate commerce," and the statutes and U.C.C. and United States Code are for a corporation, trust, ens legis, person, trust company, individual or similar. Not living men and woman.
In legal proceedings, the importance of an unrebutted affidavit cannot be overstated. When an affidavit is not contested, it holds the power to determine the outcome of a case, often leading to summary judgment. Summary judgment, a legal procedure used to resolve cases without a trial, is granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact. An unrebutted affidavit is a crucial tool in supporting this process, as it provides irrefutable evidence that, if unchallenged, becomes the foundation of the court’s ruling.
In both federal and state legal systems, summary judgment is a mechanism designed to expedite legal proceedings by resolving disputes when no material facts are in dispute. The power of an unrebutted affidavit is intertwined with summary judgment, as it can shift the balance of a case and establish the facts that form the basis for judgment.
In legal disputes, deceptive tactics are often used to deflect attention from weak or unsupported positions. These include labeling arguments as “baseless” without evidence, failing to rebut claims, or resorting to vague and dismissive language. Such strategies rely on rhetorical evasion, ad hominem attacks, and mischaracterization to avoid engaging with the substance of the opposing party’s arguments. By identifying these tactics—like shifting the burden of proof or dismissing claims outright without analysis—you can expose their lack of merit and refocus the discussion on factual and legal foundations. Recognizing and addressing these behaviors is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the legal process.
Kevin: Walker, a natural, freeborn Sovereign, national, and state Citizen of the California De’Jure Republic, brings forth undeniable evidence of default, fraud, and violations of constitutional rights under color of law. Despite clear and lawful communication through affidavits and notices, the named respondents failed to provide a valid, point-for-point response, thereby admitting to the claims by tacit procuration. These violations include identity theft, extortion, racketeering, and deprivation of rights, causing significant harm to the Affiant. Standing on constitutional and natural law principles, Kevin asserts his inherent rights, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedents and legal maxims. The evidence establishes a prima facie case, rendering the respondents liable for damages, with no immunity shielding their unlawful actions. This case underscores the importance of accountability, due process, and the protection of individual rights
A high-stakes legal battle in the Southern District of Florida has escalated as plaintiffs have filed a Plaintiffs’ Conditional Acceptance to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, along with a Plaintiffs’ Demand for Criminal Referral and Prosecution of Defendants, sanctions, and a motion for Default and Summary Judgment. The filing underscores serious allegations of misconduct and constitutional violations by the defendants, questioning the legitimacy of the court’s authority and procedural fairness in the case.