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.
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.