Kevin Walker Estate has filed an Emergency Ex Parte Injunction against Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and multiple deputies, citing ongoing harassment, theft, and extortion under color of law. The injunction, now self-executing and legally binding, orders Defendants to cease all stalking, intimidation, and unlawful deprivation of private trust property. Based on video evidence Defendants robbed Walker at gunpoint, "STOLE" his automobile, and extorted $4,388 USD in illegal fees. Violations of the injunction carry severe civil and criminal consequences, including federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1951, and 1962 (RICO).
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.
The U.S. District Court’s rejection of the Kevin Walker Estate’s $402.00 money order—over a minor technicality—raises serious concerns about judicial obstruction and due process violations. Despite the Verified Complaint and exhibits being lawfully filed upon delivery, the Court has delayed docketing under questionable procedural claims. The Kevin Walker Estate has responded by sending a corrected $405.00 money order and making a special deposit with the court’s financial institution to eliminate any further administrative barriers. Case law confirms that clerks have a ministerial duty to accept filings upon delivery, and any refusal constitutes administrative obstruction. If the Court fails to docket the case promptly, further legal action may be taken to hold all responsible parties accountable.
The intersection of law, contracts, and public administration reveals a vast framework where the government can exercise control over individuals, often under the guise of legality. By leveraging tools like propaganda, social security numbers (SSNs), and implied agreements, the government establishes a framework of public compliance while presenting an illusion of choice. This system is designed to manage public obligations, regulate access to benefits, and ensure participation in federal programs. To understand how this operates, one must examine the roles of propaganda, coercive tactics, contracts, and the critical significance of the SSN.
When a purported borrower takes out a loan from a bank, it may seem as if the bank is lending its own money. However, under 12 U.S.C. § 83, banks are prohibited from lending their own funds. Instead, the bank uses the purported borrower’s promissory note—created through the borrower’s signature—as the source of credit. This note, becomes an asset on the bank’s books, allowing it to generate credit entries for a private monetary system without using its own capital. Importantly, no money leaves a bank account; all the credit generated is based on accounting entries.
A bill of exchange can function as "legal tender" or "tender of payment," but its status depends on acceptance and context but regardless, if tendered correctly, it does discharge the debt and respective amount tendered. It is a written instrument where one party (the drawer) orders another (the drawee) to pay a specific amount to a third party (the payee). While bills of exchange can be negotiable, they can also be non-negotiable, meaning they don’t always transfer ownership upon indorsement.