Federal Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes has been automatically disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 144 upon the filing of verified affidavits alleging bias, fraud, and obstruction—yet she unlawfully continues to act without jurisdiction. Her inaction on dispositive motions and tolerance of fabricated pleadings constitute judicial treason, color of law violations, and estate theft. This article exposes her pattern of misconduct, procedural sabotage, and rebellion against the Constitution, with imminent escalation to the Ninth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court.
This article exposes a troubling pattern of judicial misconduct in California’s federal courts, where verified affidavits asserting State Citizenship and national status have been received but concealed from the official record. Specifically, it highlights the nondocketing of a key affidavit in Kevin: Walker v. Bianco et al. before Judge Wesley Hsu, while extending temporary benefit of the doubt due to possible administrative backlog. The article also touches on and reconfirms how Judge Jesus G. Bernal falsely claimed non-response in a related case to justify an unlawful dismissal, now under appeal. These actions collectively suggest systemic obstruction, due process violations, and potential criminal liability under multiple federal statutes.
This case law summary highlights key legal principles on jurisdiction, standing, and procedural requirements in financial and mortgage-related cases. Courts consistently void judgments rendered without proper jurisdiction and emphasize the need for plaintiffs to demonstrate legal standing. Fraudulent lending practices, including violations of federal regulations, have led to dismissals with prejudice. Corporate overreach by banks is curtailed through rulings that prohibit lending credit and ultra vires contracts. Evidentiary standards stress the sufficiency of affidavits and the duty to disclose information to prevent fraud. Contract principles underscore the nullification of agreements based on illegal consideration
Understanding the distinction between a demand and a motion is essential in legal and commercial matters, as each serves a different purpose and reflects the position of the party making the submission. While both terms involve asserting rights or seeking outcomes, the processes, implications, and advantages of each vary significantly. This article explores these differences in depth, outlining their roles, functions, and strategic applications.
The Estate of Steven MacArthur Brooks has filed a $2.975 billion lawsuit against San Diego County Credit Union, asserting a legally binding contract and requesting summary judgment. This claim highlights the plaintiffs’ standing as secured creditors under the Uniform Commercial Code, supported by unrebutted affidavits and documented acceptance of contractual terms by the defendants. The case centers on a security agreement and contract, with the defendants’ lack of response legally reinforcing the plaintiffs’ demand for summary judgment.
Trinsey v. Pagliaro
Categories
In Trinsey, the court stated that “[s]tatements of counsel in their briefs or argument while enlightening to the Court are […]