A Defining Legal Stand Against Government Overreach
In a powerful assertion of constitutional rights, sovereignty, and the fundamental principles of self-governance, the Kevin Walker Estate, Donnabelle Mortel Estate, WG Express Trust, and Kevin Walker IRR Trust (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) have filed a Verified Affidavit of Constitutional Authority, Supremacy Clause, American Sovereignty, Federal Jurisdiction, National/Non-Citizen National (State Citizen) Status, Estate Claim, and Rebuttal of All Legal Presumptions in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division.
This filing is more than just a legal assertion—it is a direct address of the very foundations of modern jurisdiction, government overreach, and legal presumptions that have been wielded against the American People for over a century. It places on record an irrefutable demand for the recognition of true sovereignty, property rights, and lawful governance secured by the Constitution and common law.
At stake in this case is nothing less than the core principles of American self-rule—whether the government is bound by its constitutional limitations or whether it can continue to operate under presumptions that quietly erode the People’s fundamental freedoms.
A Historic Legal Filing That Challenges Longstanding Misapplications of Law
Plaintiffs, through their Attorney(s)-in-Fact, Kevin Walker and Donnabelle Mortel, assert and demand recognition of critical legal principles that strike at the heart of jurisdiction, sovereignty, and private property rights. This case is historically significant because it confronts many of the same legal debates that shaped the founding of this nation, including:
- The distinction between state Citizens and federal U.S. citizens—a question that has been deliberately blurred since the passing of the 14th Amendment. Plaintiffs cite 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(21) and (22) to clarify that one can be a national without being a federal “citizen of the United States,” and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government absent a lawful contract.
- The contractual nature of government authority, reaffirming that government exists only by the consent of the governed (Declaration of Independence), and that consent cannot be presumed but must be expressly given—a principle that aligns with Maxims of Law and contract law.
- The supremacy of private contracts and trusts under Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits states from interfering with private agreements, including trust agreements and powers of attorney.
- The limits of federal jurisdiction under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, which clearly restricts federal authority to specific territories and situations where explicit jurisdiction has been granted.
- The unlawful use of legal presumptions, where courts and government agencies assume jurisdiction without challenge, contrary to rulings in cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803), which established that “A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”
By filing this Affidavit, Plaintiffs are forcing the court to acknowledge these fundamental issues head-on—and setting the stage for one of the most significant legal challenges to government overreach in recent history.
Judicial Notice and the End of Legal Presumptions
One of the most compelling aspects of this case is its direct rejection of all legal presumptions and assumptions about the Plaintiffs’ status, rights, and obligations.
By formally demanding Judicial Notice of their Verified Affidavit, Plaintiffs are establishing a lawful record that cannot be ignored or dismissed. They further invoke Res Judicata, Stare Decisis, and Collateral Estoppel, which:
✅ Prohibit the government or the courts from relitigating settled matters
✅ Require adherence to established legal precedents
✅ Block the enforcement of unlawful claims or jurisdictional overreach
This strategy is legally sound and strategically brilliant, as it shifts the burden onto the court and opposing parties to lawfully rebut each point under penalty of perjury. Failure to do so constitutes tacit acquiescence—a legally binding admission of truth.
Why This Case Matters: A Turning Point in Legal History
This case does not exist in a vacuum. It is part of a larger movement to restore the principles of self-governance, individual sovereignty, and the rule of law. The issues raised by the Kevin Walker Estate and associated trusts have been at the center of major legal battles throughout American history, including:
- The Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist debates, where concerns over federal overreach were first addressed in the drafting of the Constitution.
- The post-Civil War legal restructuring, where the 14th Amendment’s redefinition of citizenship was contested and remains a point of legal debate today.
- The gold confiscation and monetary shifts of the early 20th century, where private property rights were systematically diminished through legal loopholes and government mandates.
- Modern administrative overreach, where agencies like the IRS, state revenue offices, and corporate banks operate under legal fictions and undisclosed contractual obligations that strip the People of their inherent rights.
The Kevin Walker Estate’s filing stands as a direct rejection of these encroachments and a reaffirmation of constitutional supremacy, private rights, and lawful governance.
What Happens Next?
This case places the court and all opposing parties on notice—they must either:
1️⃣ Lawfully rebut every claim, point-for-point, under penalty of perjury
2️⃣ Admit, by acquiescence, that the Plaintiffs’ assertions are true
Either outcome represents a seismic shift in legal precedent. If the court fails to lawfully address the issues raised, it will establish a record that exposes the fraudulent nature of government overreach. If the court rules in favor of Plaintiffs, it will be a landmark victory for sovereignty, constitutional authority, and the right to self-determination.
DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT
DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT
Conclusion: A Defining Moment in the Fight for Freedom
The Plaintiffs and Real Parties in Interest, Kevin Walker Estate, Donnabelle Mortel Estate, WG Express Trust, and Kevin Walker IRR Trust have taken an unprecedented stand in the fight for true sovereignty, legal accountability, and constitutional fidelity. This filing is a powerful declaration that the American People are not property of the State, not subjects of unlawful jurisdiction, and not beholden to government fictions.
This case will not only affect the Plaintiffs—it has the potential to impact every American seeking to reclaim their lawful status, their private property, and their individual rights, and the Golden Age unravels before out eyes.
The battle for sovereignty is now on the record. The question is: Will the courts follow the law, or will they reveal the extent of their corruption?
Stay tuned—history is being written
