In the American republic, no man or woman can be lawfully punished for a victimless crime where no injury, harm, or contract exists. This article breaks down how statutes and administrative codes are often used to presume jurisdiction without consent, violating fundamental rights. It discusses the right not to contract, the doctrine of corpus delicti, and the legal consequences of color of law enforcement.
When a court acts without jurisdiction, its orders carry no legal force. This deep dive explains why jurisdiction must be proven—not presumed—and how Americans have a constitutional right to challenge fraudulent, unlawful, or color-of-law actions. Know your rights, understand void orders, and stand on the law, not presumption.
In Kevin Walker Estate et al v. Jay Promisco et al, Judge Jesus G. Bernal issued a secretive in-chambers dismissal while concealing three verified and notarized filings from the official record. The Plaintiffs had submitted sworn affidavits invoking constitutional, commercial, and trust law jurisdiction. Bernal’s refusal to acknowledge these documents constitutes confirmed judicial fraud, color of law activity, and a denial of due process. An unrebutted affidavit and notice of dishonor now stand on the record, confirming default. This case raises serious constitutional and legal concerns regarding judicial integrity and abuse of office.
Many officers act under "color of law" without realizing it—enforcing statutes that violate rights due to poor training or unchecked presumptions. This episode explores how police, sheriffs, and highway patrol officers can unknowingly cross legal boundaries and how the Constitution remains supreme over policy. Once properly noticed, officers are bound by their oath and must cease unlawful enforcement.
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.
In this episode, uncover how loan servicers weaponize non-judicial foreclosure to push fraudulent sales—often during active administrative procedures. Learn why a Trustee’s Deed of Sale executed by an unauthorized party is void ab initio, transferring neither title nor lien. When your home is held in a private trust, unlawful trustee assignments and forged sales are legally null, and fraud—having no statute of limitations—destroys any claim to validity.
In this episode, uncover how loan servicers weaponize non-judicial foreclosure to push fraudulent sales—often during active administrative procedures. Learn why a Trustee’s Deed of Sale executed by an unauthorized party is void ab initio, transferring neither title nor lien. When your home is held in a private trust, unlawful trustee assignments and forged sales are legally null, and fraud—having no statute of limitations—destroys any claim to validity.
Fraudulent, unsigned charges filed against Kevin Lewis Walker just days after his federal civil rights lawsuit have been exposed as a criminal attempt to retaliate and extort. With no signature, no verified complaint, and no injured party, the prosecution now stands as prima facie evidence of RICO violations, mail fraud, and abuse of process. The perpetrators—including a newly licensed attorney and Riverside County DA—are fully liable.
Unrebutted affidavits expose a major real estate fraud scheme, proving that Naji Doumit, Barry Lee O’Connor & Associates, and MARINAJ PROPERTIES engaged in RICO violations, fraudulent foreclosures, and property theft. Learn how fake Trustee’s Deeds and unlawful court actions were used to seize real estate illegally.
The Kevin Walker Estate, et al. has accused Judge Jesus G. Bernal and the Riverside Federal Court of judicial fraud, conspiracy, and deprivation of rights under color of law in Case No. 5:25-cv-00339. Despite multiple unrebutted affidavits, a formal demand for summary judgment, and a Verified Notice of Judicial Fraud, the court continues to obstruct filings, conceal evidence, and proceed with an unconstitutional sham hearing now rescheduled for March 31, 2025. This blatant disregard for due process, res judicata, and established legal precedent confirms willful misconduct and bad faith by the court. Plaintiffs demand immediate cancellation of fraudulent proceedings, issuance of summary judgment, and criminal accountability for all officials involved in this legal obstruction and abuse of power. If the court continues its unlawful actions, federal intervention and further legal action will follow.
The Kevin Walker Estate has formally filed a Notice of Judicial Fraud in Case No. 5:25-cv-00339, exposing the Riverside Court’s unconstitutional actions and deliberate obstruction of justice. Despite being placed on notice, the court has refused to cancel its sham hearing or issue the summary judgment required by law. This ongoing judicial fraud violates due process, commercial law, and constitutional protections, proving a deliberate conspiracy against the People’s rights. If the court continues to act in bad faith, Plaintiffs will escalate the matter to higher courts, federal agencies, and criminal oversight bodies. Any ruling issued under fraudulent circumstances is void ab initio and has no legal force.
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 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.