FEDERAL SUMMONS ISSUED AND SERVED: RICO Charges Served on Sheriff Chad Bianco and Deputies in $1 Trillion Lawsuit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT – CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA | CASE NO. 5:25-cv-00646-WLH-MAA

Date of Summons Issuance: May 29, 2025
Deadline to Respond: 21 Days from Service

TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA — The United States District Court for the Central District of California has issued official federal summonses in the Kevin Walker Estate v. Chad Bianco, et al case, marking the start of a federal RICO trial that names Sheriff Chad Bianco, multiple deputies including Gregory Eastwood, Nicholaw Gruwell, Robert Bowman, William Pratt, George Reyes, Robert Gell, and Joseph Sinz, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office, Menifee Justice Center, Riverside DA Michael Hestrin, and Miranda Thomson, and Ferguson Praet & Sherman LLP, among others.

The defendants now face devastating civil RICO charges and are required to file a proper response within 21 days of receipt—or face default judgment, lien enforcement, and summary adjudication under commercial law.

💥 THE CHARGES: 18 COUNTS — VERIFIED, UNREBUTTED, AND BINDING

The amended and verified federal complaint, filed by Kevin: Realworldfare proceeding sui juris and in propria persona, lays out the following charges, now fully activated by issuance of summons:

Fraud and Intentional Misrepresentation
Breach of Contract
Embezzlement and Misapplication of Funds
Identity Theft and Forgery
Monopolization of Trade and Commerce
Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
Receiving and Laundering Extortion Proceeds
False Pretenses and Constructive Fraud
Threats and Criminal Extortion
Racketeering and Organized Criminal Enterprise (RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962)
Bank Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344)
Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property and Securities (18 U.S.C. § 2314)
Torture and Coercion under Color of Law
Kidnapping and Unlawful Imprisonment
Forced Peonage and Involuntary Servitude (18 U.S.C. § 1581)
Obstruction, Intimidation, and Witness Tampering
Demand for Declaratory Relief and Injunction
Demand for Summary Judgment and $1 Trillion Commercial Lien

These are not mere allegations. The complaint is VERIFIED, and the record is fortified by notarized, unrebutted affidavits, self-executing contract security agreements, and UCC liens — all of which now operate as binding judgment under law, equity, and commerce.

DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT

Kevin_Walker_Estate_et_al_v_Chad__cacdce-25-00646__0015.0.pdf

Kevin_Walker_Estate_et_al_v_Chad__cacdce-25-00646__0015.1.pdf

📜 UNREBUTTED = ADMITTED

In the realm of commercial and equity law, an unrebutted affidavit stands as truth. Per UCC § 3-505, the notarized affidavits, notices of dishonor, and defaults issued against all named defendants create a presumption of dishonor, enforceable as judgment.

Failure to respond within 21 days will result in:

Default Judgment
Commercial lien enforcement
Execution of $1 Trillion Demand
Immediate injunctive relief
Federal civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986
Criminal referrals under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 1961–1968 (RICO)

🧾 PLAINTIFF’S LEGAL POSITION

Kevin: Realworldfare proceeds sui juris, in propria persona, not pro se, by Special Limited Appearance, expressly reserving all rights, remedies, and defenses, without waiver. He invokes his inherent common law rights as secured by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, preserving full legal capacity and standing in all matters herein. He has lawfully tendered instruments, filed UCC-1 and UCC-3 financing statements, and revoked all power of attorney.

The verified complaint affirms:

Realworldfare holds allodial title and full equitable and legal interest in the affected property and accounts
The Defendants are the DEBTORS
The case involves unlawful seizure of trust property, false arrest, and commercial kidnapping
Jurisdiction is established through equity, contract law, and exclusive federal authority

✅ VALIDITY OF SERVICE VIA REGISTERED MAIL WITH FORM 3811

Service of process in this matter was effectuated via Registered United States Mail, coupled with USPS Form 3811 Return Receipts, which establishes a legally binding presumption of delivery and receipt under both federal procedural law and commercial law standards.

🔹 Legal Authority:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) – authorizes service pursuant to the law of the state where the district court is located or where service is made. California permits service by mail with return receipt.
Federal Rules of Evidence 301 & 302 – establish a presumption of delivery upon mailing, which shifts the burden of rebuttal to the recipient.
California Evidence Code §§ 641, 647 – presume receipt of mailed documents, especially when accompanied by postal confirmation.
UCC § 1-202(d) – “A person receives a notice or notification when… it is duly delivered or mailed.”
Mailbox Rule (Common Law) – holds that a document is considered received when it is properly addressed, stamped, and deposited in the mail.

🔹 Supporting Case Law:

In re Outboard Marine Corp., 359 B.R. 893 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2007):
“Registered mail with return receipt requested constitutes sufficient service under federal law where actual delivery is evidenced.”
Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (1983):
“Notice by mail is deemed constitutionally sufficient when reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties.”
In re L.R. McCoy & Co., Inc., 67 B.R. 204 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1986):
“Return receipt signed by the addressee or their agent provides prima facie evidence of service.”
Stranahan v. Fred Meyer Inc., 11 P.3d 228 (Or. App. 2000):
“Where a mailing is confirmed by certified or registered mail and a signed receipt is produced, a rebuttable presumption of valid service exists.”