The Kevin Walker Estate, et al. has accused Judge Jesus G. Bernal and the Riverside Federal Court of judicial fraud, conspiracy, and deprivation of rights under color of law in Case No. 5:25-cv-00339. Despite multiple unrebutted affidavits, a formal demand for summary judgment, and a Verified Notice of Judicial Fraud, the court continues to obstruct filings, conceal evidence, and proceed with an unconstitutional sham hearing now rescheduled for March 31, 2025. This blatant disregard for due process, res judicata, and established legal precedent confirms willful misconduct and bad faith by the court. Plaintiffs demand immediate cancellation of fraudulent proceedings, issuance of summary judgment, and criminal accountability for all officials involved in this legal obstruction and abuse of power. If the court continues its unlawful actions, federal intervention and further legal action will follow.
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 Kevin Walker Estate is prepared to file a Notice of Judicial Fraud against the Riverside Court if a lawful default and summary judgment is not issued by March 16, 2025. Despite unrebutted affidavits, a Writ of Mandamus, and multiple formal demands, the court remains in dishonor, violating due process, federal law, and commercial statutes. This filing will expose judicial fraud, conspiracy, and deprivation of rights under color of law, holding the court accountable for its refusal to follow established legal procedure. If the court fails to act, the case will be escalated to higher courts, federal authorities, and international bodies for intervention. Justice delayed is justice denied—this is a fight for due process, constitutional supremacy, and commercial enforcement of law.
The Kevin Walker Estate is prepared to file a Notice of Judicial Fraud against the Riverside Court if a lawful default and summary judgment is not issued by March 16, 2025. Despite unrebutted affidavits, a Writ of Mandamus, and multiple formal demands, the court remains in dishonor, violating due process, federal law, and commercial statutes. This filing will expose judicial fraud, conspiracy, and deprivation of rights under color of law, holding the court accountable for its refusal to follow established legal procedure. If the court fails to act, the case will be escalated to higher courts, federal authorities, and international bodies for intervention. Justice delayed is justice denied—this is a fight for due process, constitutional supremacy, and commercial enforcement of law.
A federal lawsuit has been properly filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern Division (Riverside, CA), but the clerk’s office is seemingly engaged in concealment, tampering, and obstruction of justice. With all facts legally admitted due to non-rebuttal, judgment is now enforceable. The court must docket the case and comply with federal law immediately.
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.
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.
When individuals step into courtrooms, they often lack a full understanding of the legal terrain. One of the most subtle and impactful dynamics at play is how judges guide litigants into pleading "pro se" without informing them of the jurisdictional implications. Many people assume representing themselves is simply a matter of declining legal counsel, but the choice between "pro se" and being "sui juris" or "in propria persona" has profound legal consequences.
When navigating legal systems, understanding the nuanced distinctions between terms like pro se, in propria persona, and sui juris is essential for asserting your rights effectively. These terms are not merely interchangeable phrases for self-representation but carry specific legal implications. While pro se indicates representation without an attorney within the framework of the court’s jurisdiction, in propria persona explicitly reserves natural and common law rights and can challenge jurisdictional overreach. Sui juris further emphasizes full legal capacity and independence, rejecting any imposed legal disabilities. Each status determines how one engages with the court, impacting jurisdictional challenges and the preservation of inherent rights
Did you know that almost all crimes, from stealing to selling illegal stuff, are actually connected to money? Yep, that’s right. The legal system treats crimes like a big business deal, and most people don’t even know it. This is because of something called the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which is a set of rules about how people and companies buy and sell things. The surprising part is that these rules also secretly control how crimes are handled in court.
For decades, the Chevron deference doctrine has been a shield for corruption in our legal system, allowing judges to act […]