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.
Fraud is one of the most severe violations in law, as it undermines the integrity of contracts, judicial rulings, and legal transactions. Courts have long held that fraud vitiates everything it touches, making any agreement, ruling, or obligation obtained through fraudulent means null and void from inception. This principle is crucial in ensuring justice and protecting individuals from deception and unlawful coercion. Fraud is not merely an act of bad faith—it is a direct attack on the rule of law, rendering any action derived from it unenforceable.
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.
Wells Fargo faces a Demand for Summary Judgment after failing to rebut sworn affidavits, effectively admitting to fraud, dishonor, and lack of standing. Under California law, summary judgment must be granted as no triable issue of fact exists. The case exposes Wells Fargo’s history of foreclosure fraud, aligning with past rulings where courts dismissed their claims with prejudice. Their silence is a legal admission of guilt, making their claims void ab initio. The court is now required to strike all fraudulent claims and enforce judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
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
President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that he has directed the Justice Department to immediately terminate all remaining Biden-era U.S. attorneys, affirming that the department had been politicized like never before under the previous administration."We must ‘clean house’ IMMEDIATELY and restore confidence. America’s Golden Age must have a fair Justice System – THAT BEGINS TODAY," Trump declared
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
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
The Plaintiffs in KEVIN WALKER ESTATE, et al. vs. SIERRA PACIFIC MORTGAGE COMPANY, et al. have delivered an unchallenged demand for One Billion Dollars in default and summary judgment under Rule 56, citing unrebutted affidavits, binding agreements, and procedural dishonor by the Defendants. The Defendants’ silence invokes legal doctrines like stare decisis, res judicata, and collateral estoppel, affirming the Plaintiffs’ entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Supported by UCC §§ 1-103, 2-204, 2-206, and 3-505, this case highlights the power of legal maxims and commercial law in ensuring justice. With no genuine dispute of material fact, the Plaintiffs’ claim remains final and enforceable without a hearing
In a meticulously documented and detailed legal action, the Plaintiffs—including ™KEVIN WALKER© ESTATE, ™DONNABELLE MORTEL© ESTATE, ™KEVIN WALKER© IRR TRUST, and ™WG EXPRESS TRUST©—hereinafter collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs," assert their standing as undisputed creditors, holders in due course, and executors of both tangible and intangible assets. The Plaintiffs’ claims are built upon unrebutted affidavits and irrefutable contractual evidence, which stand as truth in commerce and are conclusively binding under res judicata, stare decisis, and collateral estoppel.