In the halls of justice, no one is above the law—not even the judge herself. And yet, in a shocking and indisputable pattern of misconduct, Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has acted ultra vires, ruling in her own disqualification motions, remanding federal civil rights actions with no authority, and repeatedly violating due process and equal protection rights under color of law.
This article lays bare the fraudulent and unconstitutional conduct perpetrated by Sykes, who is now the subject of pending federal lawsuits, including claims for Bivens violations, fraud, civil rights retaliation, judicial impersonation, and treason to the Constitution.
I. Procedural Fraud: Ruling on Her Own Disqualification Motions
On July 11, 2025, Affiant Kevin: Realworldfare filed a Verified Motion to Disqualify Judge Sykes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455(a), and 455(b). This filing was supported by multiple unrebutted affidavits, judicial notice filings, and documented bias. By operation of 28 U.S.C. § 144, the filing of a legally sufficient affidavit removes all jurisdiction from the judge, who “must proceed no further.”
Controlling Case Law: United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980) – The judge must recuse immediately when presented with a sufficient affidavit.
Instead of transferring the case as mandated, Judge Sykes denied the motion herself, in direct violation of § 144 and Ninth Circuit precedent. This was not the first time.
She previously denied two other disqualification motions, acting as judge over her own recusal in:
-
Case No. 5:25-cv-01434 (WG Private Irrevocable Trust v. Marinaj Properties LLC)
-
Case No. 5:25-cv-01450 (Marinaj Properties LLC v. Kevin Realworldfare)
In each instance, she failed to refer the disqualification to a neutral judge as required by law, instead unilaterally ruling against recusal while under color of judicial authority she no longer held. These are not legal rulings—they are simulated legal process and impersonation of lawful authority.
II. Fraud by Omission and Unauthorized Remand of Federal Civil Rights Cases
In both of the above cases, Judge Sykes proceeded to remand the actions back to state court without:
-
Ruling on dispositive motions
-
Taking judicial notice of unrebutted affidavits
-
Addressing statutory removal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1443(1) and 1446(d)
She failed to issue findings of fact or legal reasoning. These were silent remands — acts of procedural fraud and concealment, bypassing due process and robbing the Plaintiff of federal protection guaranteed under civil rights law.
Case No. 5:25-cv-01434 and 5:25-cv-01450 were lawfully removed based on verified federal civil rights deprivations. Her silent remands ignored not only the filings but also the removal provisions of § 1446(d), which explicitly deprive the state court of jurisdiction upon filing.
III. Defiance of Appellate Jurisdiction and Supervisory Authority
At the time of her July 2025 order denying recusal, a Petition for Writ of Mandamus was pending before the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 25-4549). That petition invoked appellate oversight and supervisory jurisdiction.
Despite this, Sykes proceeded as if no appellate review was underway—a blatant contempt of the Ninth Circuit’s supervisory authority. Her actions violated the doctrine of judicial restraint and usurped appellate jurisdiction, which legally suspended her ability to act in the case at all.
In any lawful system, this behavior would result in sanctions, reversal, and recusal. But Sykes has not only continued—she has doubled down, escalating the misconduct into open defiance of the law.
IV. Re-Removal, Active Appeals, and Impending Lawsuit
Both remanded cases have now been re-removed to federal court under:
-
5:25-cv-01900 (re-removal of unlawful detainer)
-
5:25-cv-01918 (re-removal of quiet title action)
In addition, Plaintiff has filed a formal appeal of remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) and a Writ of Mandamus to enforce removal rights and disqualification.
Now, in response to this mounting misconduct, a federal lawsuit is being prepared against Sykes personally, to be filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint includes:
-
Bivens constitutional tort claims
-
Fraud on the court (Hazel-Atlas Glass Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944))
-
Color of law violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986
-
Criminal deprivation of rights under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242
-
Treason under 28 U.S.C. § 453 and Article VI of the Constitution
The complaint also includes a verified commercial default and notice of pending UCC lien, based on unrebutted affidavits and willful injury to property rights.
V. What Comes Next: Civil Exposure, Commercial Lien, and Judicial Reckoning
Sunshine Sykes has knowingly:
-
Ignored controlling precedent;
-
Abused the judicial process for personal and political aims;
-
Denied procedural rights, federal forum access, and commercial remedy;
-
Concealed operative facts and fraudulently manipulated case dockets.
The tacit consent to judicial tyranny ends now.
Sykes is no longer protected by immunity, having stepped outside lawful judicial function. She has:
-
Ruled without jurisdiction,
-
Violated due process rights,
-
Operated under color of law without authority, and
-
Subordinated constitutional rights to political or institutional loyalty.
A federal lawsuit is imminent, and judicial accountability is no longer optional. The truth is now on public record, and the consequences of continued misconduct will not be evaded through silence or procedural shell games.
