June 14, 2025 – Central District of California
In an explosive escalation of ongoing federal litigation, Plaintiffs Kevin: Realworldfare and Corey: Walker have accused both U.S. District Judge Kenly Kiya Kato and U.S. Magistrate Judge Kirtan “Kita” Khalsa of deliberate misrepresentation of law, jurisdictional fraud, and judicial sabotage. The case, Kevin Realworldfare, et al. v. Tamara Lucile Wagner, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-01330, now centers not only on unlawful dispossession but on what Plaintiffs call “a simulated legal process cloaked in false authority.”
The Renewed Verified Motion to Disqualify Judge Kenly Kiya Kato, filed on June 13, 2025, invoked 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455 and was accompanied by sworn affidavits of fact. By law, the filing of a timely and sufficient verified motion for disqualification automatically divests the presiding judge of jurisdiction. The statute is clear: “The judge shall proceed no further.” Yet Judge Kato unlawfully continued to preside over the matter, deny relief, and issue rulings without jurisdiction
“Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.
The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith.”
Deliberate Misrepresentation of Law by Judge Kato
In her June 13 order denying disqualification, Judge Kato falsely claimed that Plaintiffs’ motion was procedurally defective for lack of an affidavit. This assertion is factually and legally false.
The Ninth Circuit has long held that a notarized affidavit is not required when a motion is verified under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746. As confirmed in Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 460 n.10 (9th Cir. 1995), and Carter v. Comm’r of IRS, 784 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1986), a verified motion is legally sufficient to trigger the mandatory halt under § 144.
Judge Kato’s refusal to follow this binding precedent and instead fabricate procedural defects demonstrates willful judicial misrepresentation and constitutes fraud on the court.
Mischaracterization of Plaintiffs and Jurisdictional Sabotage
Despite multiple unrebutted notices and affidavits declaring sui juris, in propria persona status, Judge Kato repeatedly mischaracterized Plaintiffs as “pro se.” This is not a mere semantic error—it is an intentional distortion of legal capacity meant to strip Plaintiffs of their equitable standing and force them under administrative jurisdiction, contrary to California Code of Civil Procedure § 284 and well-established common law.
Such misrepresentation of legal identity, after notice and objection, is a textbook example of constructive fraud and jurisdictional error. It renders every subsequent ruling void or voidable. As the Supreme Court held in Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954):
“Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.”
Judge Kato has obliterated that appearance—and by continuing to rule, despite being lawfully divested, she is acting ultra vires, in open violation of 28 U.S.C. § 144.
Judge Kato’s Collusion and Jurisdictional Void
Worse still, U.S. District Judge Kenly Kiya Kato has continued to preside over the case despite a verified motion for disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 144, which by law immediately divested her of all judicial authority. Plaintiffs argue that Kato’s continued involvement is unlawful, as no reassignment to a neutral judge occurred and no certification of the disqualification motion was made by another judicial officer, as required by statute and due process.
Judge Kato’s silence in the face of verified jurisdictional objections—and her continued issuance of rulings despite being lawfully divested—constitutes collusion with ultra vires state actors and active obstruction of remedy. She is proceeding without lawful jurisdiction, in open violation of Article III and controlling federal statutes. Her conduct compounds existing due process violations and exposes the judiciary to well-founded claims of simulated legal process and fraud under color of law.
Tamara Wagner’s Jurisdiction Ceased April 28 — Yet Obstruction Continues Unabated
At the heart of the unfolding legal crisis is Defendant Tamara Lucile Wagner, a state commissioner of Riverside County Superior Court, whose authority over the disputed property lawfully terminated on April 28, 2025, upon federal removal of the matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). As codified and reaffirmed by black-letter law, the filing of a proper Notice of Removal immediately divests the state court of jurisdiction:
“The State court shall proceed no further…” — 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d)
Not only was the case removed, but a Quiet Title Action was also filed and remains pending, further stripping the state of jurisdiction over the property and parties. Despite this, Wagner proceeded unlawfully—issuing writs of possession and denying Plaintiffs’ lawful filings, including a Motion to Intervene by the actual titleholder and Real Party in Interest.
Rather than withdraw and allow the federal forum to adjudicate, Wagner has acted in open defiance of federal supremacy, court procedure, and constitutional limits. Her actions—taken after divestiture—are not protected by judicial immunity. As established in Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), judicial immunity does not apply when a judge acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
What’s worse, rather than correcting this ultra vires conduct, Judge Kenly Kiya Kato has now doubled down on it. Instead of protecting Plaintiffs’ right to a lawful adjudication under federal law, Kato has:
-
Ignored the fact that all state court actions post-April 28 are void ab initio;
-
Sided with an unlawfully acting state commissioner;
-
Rejected Plaintiffs’ Verified Motion to Disqualify by misapplying procedural standards;
-
Continued issuing orders while divested of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 144.
The record is clear: Wagner had no authority after April 28, yet she obstructed remedy, denied procedural access, and executed dispossession without a hearing, jurisdiction, or due process. Kato’s subsequent refusal to halt or rectify these unlawful acts confirms Plaintiffs’ allegations that the federal bench is now complicit in sustaining void state actions under color of law.
The chain of misconduct—from Wagner’s ultra vires aggression to Kato’s judicial cover—exposes a coordinated deprivation of rights under the guise of legal process. It is not simply error. It is obstruction, fraud, and betrayal of judicial duty.
Failure to Follow the Law = Judicial Misconduct
The Plaintiffs’ filings lay out a clear, verified record: unrebutted affidavits, lawful declarations of capacity, a timely verified disqualification motion, and controlling law that has been flatly ignored. Judges Kato and Kita have:
-
Misrepresented the law of judicial disqualification;
-
Acted in excess of jurisdiction after verified divestiture;
-
Falsely reclassified Plaintiffs’ lawful status;
-
Ignored mandatory federal protections under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d);
-
Enabled state court actors (such as Tamara Wagner) to proceed ultra vires post-removal;
-
Refused to address unrebutted evidence, triggering estoppel by silence.
Conclusion: Demand for Recusal, Vacatur, and Federal Oversight
Plaintiffs now demand:
-
Immediate and mandatory disqualification of Judges Kato and Kita;
-
Vacatur of all rulings issued post-disqualification;
-
Referral to the Judicial Council under 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364;
-
Assignment of the matter to a neutral Article III judge untainted by the current record.
As Plaintiffs have asserted in their filings:
“This Court is no longer a forum of law—it is a vessel for administrative fraud, cloaked in robes and driven by concealment. Every ruling since June 9, 2025, is void ab initio. Disqualification is not discretionary. It is required—by law, by equity, and by honor.”
