California’s Secretary of State is unlawfully obstructing UCC filings, falsely citing Government Code § 12181 to deny individuals their commercial rights. This unconstitutional interference violates federal law, including 18 U.S.C. § 242, by depriving filers of due process under color of law. To bypass this corruption, California ns must file in the Colorado UCC region.
In a world where everything operates as a contract, understanding the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) can be the difference between being in control or being controlled. The UCC Playbook: How to Use Contract Law to Secure Your Assets, Family, Freedom, and Enforce Your Rights is a roadmap to reclaiming your financial and legal sovereignty.
The right to represent a trust as an attorney-in-fact is well established in federal law, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and legal precedent. Despite common misconceptions, a trust is a contractual entity that can be lawfully represented by an authorized agent, including an attorney-in-fact. This article breaks down the legal foundation supporting this right, key statutory provisions, and how to enforce it against courts and financial institutions that attempt to deny it.
The right to represent a trust as an attorney-in-fact is well established in federal law, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and legal precedent. Despite common misconceptions, a trust is a contractual entity that can be lawfully represented by an authorized agent, including an attorney-in-fact. This article breaks down the legal foundation supporting this right, key statutory provisions, and how to enforce it against courts and financial institutions that attempt to deny it.
The Kevin Walker Estate has filed a historic legal challenge asserting American sovereignty, constitutional supremacy, and jurisdictional limits. This Verified Affidavit confronts government overreach, legal presumptions, and federal misapplications of law—placing the courts on notice. This case could set a powerful precedent for self-governance, private property rights, and true legal accountability. Will the courts uphold the Constitution, or expose the depth of their corruption?
The case of Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. Jay Promisco, PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. reveals systemic corruption, legal incompetence, and judicial misconduct. PHH Mortgage, led by attorney Neil J. Cooper, has engaged in fraud, obstruction, and misrepresentation, while the Riverside Federal Court has actively suppressed key filings. Plaintiffs have filed a Verified Demand for criminal enforcement, sanctions, and summary judgment, exposing PHH’s baseless legal tactics. The overturning of the Chevron Doctrine further invalidates PHH’s arguments, proving bad faith litigation. This case is a critical fight against judicial corruption, demanding accountability, due process, and legal sanctions.
The DOJ has determined that removal restrictions for Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) are unconstitutional, citing Supreme Court precedent in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris informed Senate President Pro Tempore Charles Grassley that the DOJ will no longer defend these restrictions in court. DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle stated that unelected ALJs have exercised unchecked power for too long and must be accountable to the President and the people
PHH Mortgage’s Motion to Dismiss exemplifies judicial overreach, defamation, and procedural misconduct, falsely asserting that a trust cannot be represented by an attorney-in-fact. The motion mischaracterizes legal arguments, obstructs court records, and suppresses due process rights under the color of law. Plaintiffs have challenged this abuse through a writ of mandamus, exposing court manipulation and fraud.
A consumer debtor under UCC § 9-102 is a public entity and debt-transmitting utility vehicle, not a sovereign individual. As an ens legis, the consumer functions as a debtor in a system where all transactions are based on debt, per public law and policy. Since the removal of gold-backed currency (HJR-192, 1933), consumers operate within a commercial framework where assets are collateralized, not owned outright. This distinction separates the legal fiction (U.S. citizen) from the living man or woman, reinforcing the commercial nature of all consumer transactions.
The United States District Court, Central District of California (Riverside), is facing serious allegations of obstruction of justice, record tampering, and due process violations for refusing to file and docket lawful pleadings. Plaintiffs KEVIN WALKER ESTATE, et al. have presented undisputable evidence of obstruction, fraud, and misconduct, and Plaintiffs are demanding criminal prosecution, sanctions, and immediate enforcement. Despite documented receipt of filings, Riverside U.S. District Court and Clerk and other officials have concealed records and manipulated the judicial process, violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512, 1519, and 2071. With Pam Bondi CC’d on the correspondence, high-level authorities are now aware of this constitutional crisis threatening judicial transparency and fundamental rights
In a monumental legal development, the Kevin Walker Estate v. Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company case has been removed to federal court and initially assigned to a U.S. Magistrate Judge. However, the Kevin Walker Estate has declined to consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate and formally filed a "Plaintiffs’ Notice of Decline of Consent to Be Heard by a Magistrate Judge and Demand for an Article III Judge." This demand underscores the Plaintiffs’ assertion of their constitutional right to adjudication by a lifetime-appointed federal judge under Article III of the U.S. Constitution
An Article III court provides essential protections in civil contract disputes involving unrebutted affidavits. It ensures due process, enforces uncontested evidence, and offers both legal and equitable remedies. With exclusive equity jurisdiction, these courts can compel performance, issue injunctions, and affirm binding agreements, safeguarding constitutional rights and justice.
BMW of Florence and BMW of North America face serious assertions from the Brian Victor Charles Estate, including conspiracy, racketeering, and theft. Central to the case are unrebutted affidavits and the alleged unlawful repossession of a vehicle from BMW Florence’s private property.