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
Temecula, CA – In a groundbreaking legal battle, the ™KEVIN WALKER© ESTATE, alongside affiliated trusts, has filed a verified complaint […]
Without permission and against express written revocation of any presumed authorization to use a social security number, Rancho California Water District is acting against express instructions and blatantly committing fraud and stealing the information of Americans.