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.
Understanding how to properly assert legal capacity in court is crucial—especially when representing a trust or estate. Many well-meaning plaintiffs unknowingly sabotage their cases by blending fiduciary roles with personal appearances like "pro per" or "in propria persona," triggering instant dismissal. Courts consistently hold that only licensed attorneys may represent legal entities, and failing to distinguish roles invites confusion and legal rejection. This article breaks down what combinations are lawful, what mistakes to avoid, and how to protect your standing by appearing strictly in a fiduciary capacity. It’s not just about getting heard—it’s about being recognized with legal force and precision.
Learn about the differences between "Pro Se" and "Pro Per" representation in legal matters, particularly when it comes to trust representation. "Pro Se" refers to representing oneself voluntarily within the court’s jurisdiction, while "Pro Per" allows individuals to assert their personal status and challenge court jurisdiction. This distinction highlights the power of an Affidavit of Power of Attorney In Fact, which grants an Attorney In Fact the authority to represent a trust, bypassing the need for a licensed attorney in public jurisdiction. Understand how these legal roles impact court standing and the ability to assert constitutional and contractual rights
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
When representing oneself in legal matters, terms like pro se and in propria persona (often accompanied by sui juris) describe different approaches to self-representation. Although these terms are frequently conflated, they represent distinct philosophies and legal statuses that impact how an individual interacts with the court. Understanding these differences is essential for anyone asserting their rights without legal counsel.