The Central District of California is no longer functioning as a lawful Article III tribunal. It is operating as a coordinated mechanism of obstruction—systematically ignoring Rule 8, refusing mandatory Rule 55 defaults, and suppressing Rule 56 evidence in open defiance of due process. This pattern is not accidental but structural, presenting all hallmarks of a federal judiciary acting as a criminal enterprise under color of law. The result is a full constitutional collapse in which rights cannot be enforced, remedies cannot be obtained, and justice has been replaced with procedural illusion. Immediate Supreme Court intervention is not optional—it is constitutionally required.
Judges are not immune when they act outside lawful jurisdiction. Under the Clearfield Doctrine (Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943)), government officials — including judges — are always operating in a commercial capacity when they issue orders, bonds, or judgments. In doing so, they are not exercising sovereign authority but acting as private actors in commerce, stripped of immunity and personally liable.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) codifies due process by requiring notice, opportunity to respond, and a final record before rights or property can be touched. Anchored by the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, the APA reflects both constitutional and statutory safeguards. In commerce and trust law, unrebutted affidavits operate under the same principle: silence equals acquiescence, and the record stands as truth. Attempts to criminalize or intimidate lawful administrative procedure are themselves unlawful, void, and retaliatory.