PHH Mortgage’s Motion to Dismiss exemplifies judicial overreach, defamation, and procedural misconduct, falsely asserting that a trust cannot be represented by an attorney-in-fact. The motion mischaracterizes legal arguments, obstructs court records, and suppresses due process rights under the color of law. Plaintiffs have challenged this abuse through a writ of mandamus, exposing court manipulation and fraud.
Federal statutes strictly prohibit judges, U.S. marshals, and court clerks from engaging in the practice of law or any outside employment that interferes with their official duties. These restrictions are designed to ensure judicial impartiality, prevent conflicts of interest, and uphold public trust in the legal system.
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
In a monumental legal development, the Kevin Walker Estate v. Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company case has been removed to federal court and initially assigned to a U.S. Magistrate Judge. However, the Kevin Walker Estate has declined to consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate and formally filed a "Plaintiffs’ Notice of Decline of Consent to Be Heard by a Magistrate Judge and Demand for an Article III Judge." This demand underscores the Plaintiffs’ assertion of their constitutional right to adjudication by a lifetime-appointed federal judge under Article III of the U.S. Constitution
In a groundbreaking legal case, the Kevin Walker Estate has filed a $100 million claim against the Menifee Justice Center, accusing it of racketeering, conspiracy, extortion, and coercion. The claim centers on affirmed violations of House Joint Resolution 192 of 1933 (Public Law 73-10), which prohibits requiring payment in specific forms of currency, including Federal Reserve Notes. This claim is supported by an unrebutted affidavit, which, under commercial law, is legally considered truth. The case highlights constitutional concerns, including Article I, Section 10, which forbids states from impairing contractual obligations. Using principles from the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), Kevin Walker Estate asserts that the Justice Center’s failure to rebut the claims creates a self-executing contract, solidifying liability. Legal experts suggest the case could set a precedent for challenging governmental overreach in financial and legal matters. The U.S. Attorney General and the Menifee Justice Center have yet to respond, but the case could significantly influence the enforcement of HJR 192 Public Law 73-10 and individual rights protections.
In a landmark assertion of constitutional and contractual rights, Kevin, a state Citizen: Californian, national, proceeding sui juris (in one’s own right), has issued a Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure to Defendants James J Gaffney, Kevin Joseph Smale, Chad Bianco, Grewel, KEVIN SMALE, JAMES GAFFNEY, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF. Kevin’s claims are now confirmed as admitted and true, supported by an unrebutted commercial affidavit that has rendered all facts stated as established under the law. The dispute revolves around Kevin’s claim of his unalienable right to travel freely without being subjected to commercial regulations designed for corporate entities or individuals engaged in commerce, and the deprivation of his rights under the color of law.
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.
In what promises to be a high-stakes and precedent-setting legal battle, ™KEVIN WALKER© ESTATE, and related entities have issued a notice of intent to pursue confirmed claims against multiple defendants, including Rancho California Water District, its officers, trustees, and Does 1-100 inclusive. The claimants affirm an array of serious violations, including fraud, racketeering, conspiracym identity theft, extortion, conspiracy, and deprivation of rights under the color of law. With an intricate framework of legal statutes and principles underpinning the admitted violations and felony crimes (thus the unrebutted affidavits), the lawsuit could set a powerful example of using legal mechanisms to demand accountability.
In a groundbreaking legal maneuver grounded in contract law, Kevin Walker, acting as Plaintiff and Attorney-in-Fact for the ™KEVIN WALKER© ESTATE, has officially filed a Notice of Default against the California Highway Patrol (CHP), the State of California, and the Riverside County Sheriff. The filing alleges a breach of contractual obligations under common law, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and constitutional protections, demanding accountability for actions the Plaintiffs claim were unlawful and coercive.
At the center of the dispute is Ticket #7W50000TL, which the Plaintiffs affirm, via an unrebutted commercial affidavit, constitutes a fraudulent and coercive offer presented without valid consent. The Notice of Default demands an initial payment of $100,000,000.00 USD, escalating to $900,000,000,000.00 USD in total liability should the Defendants fail to fulfill their contractual obligations and respond in accordance with the terms outlined in the conditional acceptance agreement
Pulling over a man or woman traveling privately in a non-commercial automobile marked "PRIVATE" without lawful cause can constitute a violation of constitutional rights and federal law. When law enforcement applies commercial laws intended for motor vehicles to private automobiles, such actions may cross into criminal conduct and civil liability under state and federal statutes.
In today’s complex legal and administrative landscape, asserting individual sovereignty and the right to travel is more important than ever. This article explores the significance of self-executing contracts and security agreements, examining their role in preserving personal freedoms, ensuring due process, and protecting fundamental rights. Using the case of ™KEVIN WALKER© ESTATE, ™KEVIN LEWIS WALKER©, ™KEVIN WALKER© IRR TRUST, represented by attorney-in-fact Kevin Walker, this piece highlights the legal principles, precedents, and doctrines underpinning these critical instruments in protecting the right to travel.This article also emphasizes that if this matter is not promptly settled, it will result in a $900,000,000,000.00 USD (billion) lawsuit filed for summary judgment as a matter of law, invoking contract law, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and legal maxims, including silent acquiescence, tacit agreement, tacit procuration, and binding contracts.
Temecula, CA – In a groundbreaking legal battle, the ™KEVIN WALKER© ESTATE, alongside affiliated trusts, has filed a verified complaint […]