If your home was wrongfully foreclosed, you may still have a powerful path to reclaim title, assert your interest, and recover the proceeds or possession—by asserting your equitable rights, perfecting a security interest, and enforcing your position as a secured party in law and in commerce.
Peace officers like sheriffs are sworn to uphold the Constitution—but when they step outside their lawful authority, they act under "color of law." Even without bad intent, incompetence or poor training can lead to serious civil rights violations. Under 18 U.S.C. § 242, deprivation of rights—whether willful or through ignorance—is a federal crime. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, even for those sworn to enforce it.
Discover how full faith and credit empowers you as the true creditor of the system. Explore key legal principles from the U.S. Constitution, 18 U.S.C. § 8, 31 U.S.C. § 5118, and the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, revealing how all financial obligations are backed by your trust and credit. Learn how the U.S. government operates commercially under the Clearfield Doctrine and why debts are legally discharged through the Treasury. Take control of your financial knowledge and reclaim your power in the system.
A historic $1 trillion federal lawsuit has been filed against Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, Gregory Eastwood, Robert Bowman, William Pratt, and others for violating the right to travel, engaging in racketeering (RICO), fraud, and extortion. The case is built on multiple unrebutted affidavits, which serve as prima facie evidence, legally establishing the defendants’ admission of guilt under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1341, 1951, and RICO statutes. By collateral estoppel, res judicata, and stare decisis, these facts are now irrefutable, and the case moves toward judicial enforcement, asset seizures, and accountability for constitutional violations and financial crimes. Case #5:25−cv−00646−WLH−MAA on the calendar of Article III Judge, Wesley L Hsu
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.
The Kevin Walker Estate has strategically filed a Conditional Acceptance in response to PHH Mortgage’s Motion to Dismiss, creating a binding contract offer under UCC and contract law. Defendants must now provide verified evidence or face immediate dishonor and default, triggering summary judgment and a $100,000,000 legal award in Plaintiffs’ favor. Adding to the controversy, missing court filings have mysteriously reappeared after Plaintiffs served a Writ of Mandamus, exposing potential judicial misconduct. This case is a critical battle for legal accountability, sovereignty, and due process, forcing courts and corporations to confront their procedural failures. Will the courts uphold the law or expose their corruption?
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
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
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.
In a decisive move to hold the Defendants accountable for their ongoing misconduct and failure to comply with court orders, the Plaintiffs have filed a "SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIRMATION OF RECORD, NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS’ CONTINUED DISHONOR, DEFAULT, AND WILLFUL NONCOMPLIANCE, AND REQUEST [DEMAND] FOR SANCTIONS, SUMMARY JUDGEMENT, AND RELIEF" in the ongoing litigation before Judge Roy K. Altman. This filing underscores the Plaintiffs’ determination to secure justice and highlights the Defendants’ blatant disregard for the legal process, affirming the legal basis for sanctions, default judgment, and summary judgment in the Plaintiffs’ favor.
The Clearfield Doctrine, established in the Supreme Court case Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943), provides a critical lens to view the U.S. government’s role in commerce and contract law. This doctrine reveals that when the government engages in "commercial" transactions, it acts as a private entity and forfeits any claim to sovereign immunity. Its implications ripple through contract law, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and the understanding that everything, factually and legally, is commerce. Everything the Government does is "commercial." Think about that for a moment…