The Ninth Circuit Opening Brief filed by Kevin: Realworldfare unmasks a scheme of judicial fraud and collusion by Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes and opposing counsel. Sykes ruled on her own disqualification, issued a fraudulent remand order while jurisdictionally dead, and colluded to suppress verified affidavits while elevating unverified hearsay to judgment. The unlawful detainer was void from inception, every order she issued is void ab initio, and fraud vitiates everything—leaving the Ninth Circuit with the duty to vacate all orders and restore rights.
Sunshine Suzanne Sykes of the Central District of California continues to issue orders after permanent disqualification under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455, and Rule 63, in flagrant defiance of black-letter law. Despite verified affidavits, unrebutted filings, pending Ninth Circuit appeals, and a Bill in Equity and Writ of Mandamus before the Supreme Court, she has unlawfully gagged the Real Party in Interest, Kevin: Realworldfare, and dismissed all claims without jurisdiction.
Her actions are not “judicial error” but fraud, obstruction, and treason against Article III, evidenced by void “text-only” dismissals, suppression of verified evidence, and impersonation of judicial authority. With all cases now on appeal and the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction imminent, the judiciary faces a stark choice: enforce the Constitution or ratify judicial treason.
Sunshine Suzanne Sykes, a federal judge in the Central District of California, is now under intense scrutiny for ruling on her own disqualification in three separate cases, despite verified affidavits of bias, fraud, and constitutional violations. All affected cases are currently on appeal, including a pending Petition for Writ of Mandamus, and re-removal actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1447. Evidence shows Sykes acted ultra vires, impersonated lawful authority, and obstructed justice under color of law. A federal civil rights and Bivens lawsuit is imminent. This article exposes the full extent of her judicial misconduct and outlines the coming legal consequences.
Ask ChatGPT
Learn how to lawfully recuse a biased federal judge using 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Once a verified motion and affidavit are filed, disqualification is immediate, mandatory, and strips the judge of all jurisdiction. Any continued action by that judge is ultra vires and void ab initio. This article exposes the legal authority behind automatic recusal and outlines your remedies if the judge refuses to step down.
Ask ChatGPT
Charles Rogers (Bar #64530) and Jeremiah D. Raxter (Bar #276811) are engaged in an ongoing scheme of judicial fraud and racketeering in Riverside County, California. Both individuals are inactive members of the California State Bar and have no lawful authority to act as judges or commissioners. Their acts — including issuing bench warrants, signing orders, and presiding over court matters — are void ab initio and constitute federal felonies under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 1962. Their actions represent a criminal enterprise under color of law, demanding immediate investigation, disbarment, and prosecution. Public notice is hereby given that all their proceedings are fraudulent and without legal force.
Zillow has become a monopolistic force in U.S. real estate, systematically omitting key title documents like Grant Deeds and Warranty Deeds from its so-called “property reports.” This article exposes how Zillow’s data manipulation, in collusion with county agencies like Riverside County, enables fraudulent foreclosures and title theft under color of law. Verified public records show lawful conveyances by private trusts—including MEMORY STARBURST TRUST and WG PRIVATE IRREVOCABLE TRUST—being ignored. What Zillow presents as authority is often a cover for commercial fraud, suppression of due process, and mass dispossession by design.
Riverside County, California, is facing serious allegations of obstruction, RICO violations, and fraud by public officials including Jackie Prendergast, Michael Hestrin, Miranda Thomson, and Chad Bianco. Verified affidavits and EIN data reveal that the Superior Court and District Attorney’s Office operate as private corporations under color of law. Court filings are being concealed, federal lawsuits returned, and rights obstructed in what increasingly resembles a criminal enterprise. This article details the evidence and legal violations, calling for immediate federal investigation.
California law strictly limits the use of emergency vehicle lights to active emergencies, pursuits, or fire responses. Under Vehicle Code § 21055, lights and sirens may only be used when responding to specific urgent situations, not for patrol or display. Sections § 25250 and § 25269 further prohibit flashing red lights unless these strict conditions are met. Unauthorized use is not only unlawful—it may constitute impersonation or abuse of authority under Penal Code § 538d. This framework ensures emergency lights are used only when public safety is genuinely at risk.
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.
When a court ignores a Conditional Acceptance, Affidavit, or Challenge of Jurisdiction and proceeds with a hearing or issues an order, it commits a fundamental violation of due process, rendering its actions void ab initio—invalid from the outset—as it lacks lawful authority and jurisdiction. Legal precedents confirm that unrebutted affidavits stand as truth, and jurisdiction must be proven before any court action. This article explores the legal foundation behind void judgments, fraud upon the court, and how to challenge unlawful rulings. Learn how to invoke U.C.C. § 3-505, Pennoyer v. Neff (1878), and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 to declare a fraudulent order null and enforce your rights.
The Constitution of the United States guarantees unalienable rights, due process, and the sovereignty of the people, yet the actions of Sheppard Mullin, Shannon Peterson, and Blake Partridge blatantly undermine these principles. By depriving individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process, subverting the rule of law, and weaponizing authority to suppress justice, they have waged an assault on constitutional protections. Their conduct represents an affront to the nation’s legal framework and a betrayal of their duty to uphold the supreme law of the land. This article examines their violations and calls for accountability to defend the rule of law and the rights of the American people