Kevin Walker has filed a groundbreaking $1 trillion federal lawsuit against Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, District Attorney Michael Hestrin, and multiple officials, alleging a conspiracy involving fraud, kidnapping, identity theft, and racketeering under color of law. The amended complaint, filed on April 17, 2025, proceeds solely in Walker’s name and is backed by unrebutted affidavits, UCC liens, and verified commercial defaults. Among the charges are violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1341, and 1962, as well as constitutional deprivations of due process and property rights. This case challenges the legitimacy of statutory enforcement practices and asserts equity, trust law, and secured party protections. If successful, it could set a national precedent for private remedies against public actors abusing administrative power.
Riverside County, California, is facing serious allegations of obstruction, RICO violations, and fraud by public officials including Jackie Prendergast, Michael Hestrin, Miranda Thomson, and Chad Bianco. Verified affidavits and EIN data reveal that the Superior Court and District Attorney’s Office operate as private corporations under color of law. Court filings are being concealed, federal lawsuits returned, and rights obstructed in what increasingly resembles a criminal enterprise. This article details the evidence and legal violations, calling for immediate federal investigation.
California law strictly limits the use of emergency vehicle lights to active emergencies, pursuits, or fire responses. Under Vehicle Code § 21055, lights and sirens may only be used when responding to specific urgent situations, not for patrol or display. Sections § 25250 and § 25269 further prohibit flashing red lights unless these strict conditions are met. Unauthorized use is not only unlawful—it may constitute impersonation or abuse of authority under Penal Code § 538d. This framework ensures emergency lights are used only when public safety is genuinely at risk.
This article contrasts Florida’s judicial foreclosure system with the non-judicial processes used in California and Nevada, exposing how administrative overreach often results in fraudulent, void trustee’s deeds of sale. Florida, by requiring court involvement, protects due process, equitable interests, and private trusts — reflecting the principles of a living constitutional republic. In contrast, California and Nevada allow corporations to seize homes without judicial review, disregarding trust law and secured party rights. Learn how private trusts, UCC filings, and legal challenges can be used to defend property rights in non-judicial states. Florida serves as a legal firewall and model for restoring true rule of law.
Kevin Walker Estate and affiliated trusts have filed a Verified Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit, challenging a dismissal order they claim was issued without due process, proper docketing, or consideration of unrebutted affidavits. The appeal cites judicial misconduct, record tampering, and constitutional violations, demanding corrective action and recognition of their administrative filings.
In the American republic, no man or woman can be lawfully punished for a victimless crime where no injury, harm, or contract exists. This article breaks down how statutes and administrative codes are often used to presume jurisdiction without consent, violating fundamental rights. It discusses the right not to contract, the doctrine of corpus delicti, and the legal consequences of color of law enforcement.
Peace officers like sheriffs are sworn to uphold the Constitution—but when they step outside their lawful authority, they act under "color of law." Even without bad intent, incompetence or poor training can lead to serious civil rights violations. Under 18 U.S.C. § 242, deprivation of rights—whether willful or through ignorance—is a federal crime. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, even for those sworn to enforce it.
In this episode, uncover how loan servicers weaponize non-judicial foreclosure to push fraudulent sales—often during active administrative procedures. Learn why a Trustee’s Deed of Sale executed by an unauthorized party is void ab initio, transferring neither title nor lien. When your home is held in a private trust, unlawful trustee assignments and forged sales are legally null, and fraud—having no statute of limitations—destroys any claim to validity.
In this episode, uncover how loan servicers weaponize non-judicial foreclosure to push fraudulent sales—often during active administrative procedures. Learn why a Trustee’s Deed of Sale executed by an unauthorized party is void ab initio, transferring neither title nor lien. When your home is held in a private trust, unlawful trustee assignments and forged sales are legally null, and fraud—having no statute of limitations—destroys any claim to validity.
A historic $1 trillion federal lawsuit has been filed against Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, Gregory Eastwood, Robert Bowman, William Pratt, and others for violating the right to travel, engaging in racketeering (RICO), fraud, and extortion. The case is built on multiple unrebutted affidavits, which serve as prima facie evidence, legally establishing the defendants’ admission of guilt under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1341, 1951, and RICO statutes. By collateral estoppel, res judicata, and stare decisis, these facts are now irrefutable, and the case moves toward judicial enforcement, asset seizures, and accountability for constitutional violations and financial crimes. Case #5:25−cv−00646−WLH−MAA on the calendar of Article III Judge, Wesley L Hsu
The Kevin Walker Estate has formally filed a Notice of Judicial Fraud in Case No. 5:25-cv-00339, exposing the Riverside Court’s unconstitutional actions and deliberate obstruction of justice. Despite being placed on notice, the court has refused to cancel its sham hearing or issue the summary judgment required by law. This ongoing judicial fraud violates due process, commercial law, and constitutional protections, proving a deliberate conspiracy against the People’s rights. If the court continues to act in bad faith, Plaintiffs will escalate the matter to higher courts, federal agencies, and criminal oversight bodies. Any ruling issued under fraudulent circumstances is void ab initio and has no legal force.
When a court ignores a Conditional Acceptance, Affidavit, or Challenge of Jurisdiction and proceeds with a hearing or issues an order, it commits a fundamental violation of due process, rendering its actions void ab initio—invalid from the outset—as it lacks lawful authority and jurisdiction. Legal precedents confirm that unrebutted affidavits stand as truth, and jurisdiction must be proven before any court action. This article explores the legal foundation behind void judgments, fraud upon the court, and how to challenge unlawful rulings. Learn how to invoke U.C.C. § 3-505, Pennoyer v. Neff (1878), and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 to declare a fraudulent order null and enforce your rights.