Unrebutted Affidavits Establish Admission of Fraud, Racketeering, and Deprivation of Rights
A historic one trillion dollar ($1,000,000,000,000.00) lawsuit has been formally filed against Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, Gregory D. Eastwood, Robert C. V. Bowman, William Pratt, George Reyes, Robert Gell, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office, Menifee Justice Center, the law firm Ferguson Praet & Sherman A Professional Corporation, and Does 1-100 Inclusive. This case centers on violations of the right to travel, racketeering (RICO), fraud, extortion, identity theft, and deprivation of rights under color of law. Case #5:25−cv−00646−WLH−MAA on the calendar of Article III Judge, Wesley L Hsu.
Not Allegations, But Admitted Facts
This lawsuit is not based on mere accusations, but on admitted and established facts through an unrebutted administrative process. Under commercial and administrative law, an unrebutted affidavit stands as truth. The defendants were served with multiple verified affidavits and failed to respond, thereby admitting the claims by tacit procuration, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
Federal Statute Violations and Legal Basis
The lawsuit is grounded in multiple federal statutes, including civil rights laws, RICO provisions, and criminal fraud statutes, which the defendants have admitted to violating through their failure to rebut the verified affidavits. The legal claims in this case are supported by the following statutes:
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
- Defendants, acting under color of law, are accused of violating constitutional rights, including the right to travel, due process, and protection from unlawful seizure.
- 18 U.S.C. § 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
- Criminal liability applies to officials who willfully deprive any person of their federally protected rights, including through coercion, intimidation, or extortion.
- 18 U.S.C. § 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights
- The lawsuit establishes that multiple defendants colluded to violate constitutional rights, constituting a criminal conspiracy.
- 18 U.S.C. § 1341 – Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud
- 18 U.S.C. § 1951 – Hobbs Act (Extortion and Coercion)
- Defendants are accused of engaging in extortionate schemes, using threats of arrest and financial penalties to extract money from private citizens.
- 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968 – Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
- 15 U.S.C. § 1-2 – Antitrust Violations and Monopolization of Trade
- Defendants allegedly engaged in monopolization of trade and commerce, restricting the free movement of private travelers under unlawful pretenses.
- 18 U.S.C. § 1581 – Peonage, Forced Labor, and Slavery
- The enforcement of unlawful fines, fees, and coercive financial demands upon private citizens amounts to forced peonage.
The violations detailed in this lawsuit are not merely theoretical—they have been admitted through the defendants’ silence following their receipt of multiple, unrebutted affidavits. The case now moves toward judicial enforcement and financial recovery for the claims asserted
Legal Foundation: The Right to Travel and Constitutional Violations
At the core of the lawsuit is the assertion that California officials unlawfully infringed upon the fundamental right to travel, which has been consistently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as an inherent and unalienable right. The case argues that the enforcement of commercial driver’s licenses, traffic citations, and vehicle registration requirements on private travelers constitutes fraud, coercion, and racketeering under federal law.
Furthermore, the lawsuit highlights widespread abuse of power, including false imprisonment, extortion, identity theft, and financial crimes committed under the guise of law enforcement.
Administrative Process Proving Liability
The legal claims in this case have already been accepted and stipulated as fact through an administrative process, which included:
- Notice of Conditional Acceptance – The defendants were formally notified of the claims and given the opportunity to rebut them.
- Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure – After failing to provide a point-by-point rebuttal, defendants were issued an official notice of default.
- Affidavit Certificate of Dishonor – The defendants’ failure to respond lawfully established their admission of guilt.
- Exhibits and UCC Filings – Officially recorded documents proving fraud, racketeering, and violations of federal law.
Key Claims in the Lawsuit
The lawsuit asserts numerous violations, including but not limited to:
- Fraud and Misrepresentation
- Breach of Contract
- Racketeering (RICO Violations)
- Theft, Embezzlement, and Fraudulent Misapplication of Funds and Assets
- Fraudulent Transportation and Transfer of Stolen Goods and Securities
- Forgery, Identity Theft, and Unauthorized Use of Identity
- Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
- Monopolization of Trade and Commerce
- Receiving Extortion Proceeds
- Bank Fraud
- False Pretenses and Extortion
- Torture, Kidnapping, and Forced Peonage
- Unlawful Interference, Intimidation, and Emotional Distress
- Declaratory Judgment & Relief
- Demand for Summary Judgment
One Trillion Dollar Judgment and Lien
As a result of the administrative process, a self-executing contract and security agreement has been lawfully established, leading to a stipulated one trillion dollar ($1,000,000,000,000.00) judgment and lien against the defendants. This means the case does not require a trial to prove liability—by failing to rebut the claims, the defendants have already admitted to them.
Legal Precedents Supporting the Case
This lawsuit is grounded in well-established legal principles, including:
- “An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce.”
- “Tacit procuration and non-response establish agreement to claims made.”
- “Where there is no material fact in dispute, summary judgment must be granted as a matter of law.”
The case is now poised to proceed directly to enforcement of the trillion-dollar judgment, which could result in asset seizures, liens, and further legal actions against the named defendants.
Implications and Next Steps
This case sets a groundbreaking legal precedent for how administrative processes can be used to hold government officials accountable for constitutional violations and financial crimes. If enforced, this judgment could reshape legal standards for the right to travel, government accountability, and commercial law enforcement practices.
The defendants now face potential federal investigations, asset forfeitures, and further civil and criminal penalties as this case moves forward. The legal battle ahead is one of the largest and most significant in U.S. history.
