Van Ballion (Nigel Turner), a UK-based content creator, and Michael J. Gravlin, an attorney at law behind the channel Law Talks with Mike, are accused by critics of actively undermining the constitutional rights of Americans. Their content spreads misinformation, misrepresents legal concepts, and wages smear campaigns against non-citizen nationals/nationals and state Citizens who assert their lawful rights and expect Constitutional security and protection. Michael Gravlin’s role as an officer of the court raises concerns about ethical violations, as his platform reportedly labels Americans with disparaging terms such as "Sov Cits" to maliciously disprage and undermine their legal advocacy. Van Ballion, despite lacking ties to the U.S. legal system, interferes in American civic discourse through malicious, dispraging, and harmful commentary. The KEVIN WALKER ESTATE is now preparing to sue YouTube, Turner, and Gravlin for malicious defamation, libel, and conspiracy to undermine lawful discourse, conspiracy and racketerring against the people of America. Americans seeking to protect their rights or who have been defamed are encouraged to assert their rights and seek redress.
In legal proceedings, some parties may resort to deceptive tactics to avoid addressing the actual issues at hand. These tactics include dismissing valid arguments with vague, unsupported claims like “baseless” or “meritless” and avoiding engagement with evidence or legal references. Instead of addressing the facts, the opposing side might use emotional language, misrepresent your position, or shift the burden of proof onto you. These strategies are often employed to distract from the lack of a solid defense or to obscure the weakness of their own case. Recognizing these behaviors can help you stay focused on the core legal issues and ensure that the dispute is resolved based on merit.
The Constitution of the United States serves as the bedrock of our nation, guaranteeing unalienable rights, due process, and the supremacy of the people over the government. Yet, Sheppard Mullin, Shannon Peterson, and Blake Partridge, Junior Partner at Sastre, Saavedra & Epstein, PLLC, have demonstrated through their actions that they stand in direct opposition to these foundational principles. Their conduct represents a calculated assault on constitutional protections and the sovereignty of the American people, effectively waging war against the Constitution and its intended purpose.
In recent legal proceedings, Judge Altman’s handling of critical commercial and financial laws has raised serious concerns. His dismissal of key sections of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and essential federal statutes, such as House Joint Resolution 192 and 18 U.S.C. § 8, undermines the integrity of the U.S. legal system. These laws are foundational to understanding the complex interplay of U.S. monetary policy, debt discharge, and commercial transactions. In this article, we will dissect the significant legal missteps in Judge Altman’s ruling, exploring the implications for commercial law, government debt obligations, and the broader judicial system.
Bare criminal statutes define unlawful behaviors and prescribe penalties such as fines or imprisonment but do not grant individuals the right to file lawsuits. These statutes are enforced exclusively by government authorities. In contrast, a private right of action allows individuals to file lawsuits for civil remedies, either explicitly or implied by courts. While criminal statutes like mail fraud or conspiracy against rights may not provide private remedies, other laws such as RICO or § 1983 may allow victims to seek civil redress. The distinction between criminal enforcement and civil remedies underscores the importance of understanding statutory rights for successful legal claims.
Riverside County Sheriff deputies Gregory D. Eastwood and Robert C. V. Bowman stalked national and private attorney-in-fact Kevin L. Walker through his neighborhood around the corner from his home, then arrested him on a bogus warrant and towed his Lamborghini. There is now an administrative process taking place and a pending One Trillion Dollar ($1,000,000,000,000.00) Federal conspiracy, fraud, forced peonage, and racketeering lawsuit against the deputies and the Riverside County Sheriff Department.