Appeal Filed in Walker Estate Action: Exposing Procedural Fraud, Concealment, and Constitutional Violations

Appeal Filed in Walker Estate Action: Exposing Procedural Fraud, Concealment, and Constitutional Violations

On April 2, 2025, the Plaintiffs in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. Jay Promisco, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00339-JGB, formally filed a Verified Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This filing is not just a procedural formality—it outlines a detailed and extensive challenge to what Plaintiffs describe as gross procedural errors, record tampering, suppression of filings, and constitutional violations by both court officers and defendants.


🔔 Summary of the Appeal Filing

The Notice of Appeal, submitted by Kevin Walker and Donnabelle Mortel as Attorneys-in-Fact for the respective trusts and estates, formally contests the Order of Dismissal issued on March 19, 2025, by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. The Plaintiffs allege that the Order is void ab initio, rendered without proper process, and is based on:

  • Defective and untimely filings by the Defendants;

  • Omission of Plaintiffs’ timely responses from the docket;

  • Failure to consider unrebutted affidavits and demands for summary judgment;

  • Refusal to acknowledge proper service and constitutional claims;

  • Judicial bias, including labeling the Plaintiffs’ filings as “sovereign citizen theories” without addressing the substance.


⚖️ Key Legal Challenges Raised in the Appeal

1. Violation of Due Process

The Plaintiffs claim that the court ignored unrebutted, verified affidavits, improperly failed to docket key filings, and dismissed the matter without a hearing—each constituting serious due process violations under the 5th and 14th Amendments.

2. Improper Dismissal Without Joint Motion

Defendants failed to file a joint motion to dismiss, despite multiple named parties—an action required under procedural rules when several parties are involved. The separate motion filed by PHH Mortgage was therefore allegedly procedurally invalid.

3. Refusal to Acknowledge Valid Special Appearance

Plaintiffs appeared by Special Limited Appearance, under power of attorney and in accordance with statutory and equitable remedies. Their filings included an extensive record of affidavits, conditional acceptances, and demands for criminal referral, none of which were contested in substance.

4. Judicial Bias and Mischaracterization

The dismissal order characterized Plaintiffs’ filings as “frivolous,” “unintelligible,” and based on “sovereign citizen theories.” Plaintiffs argue this constitutes judicial misconduct, defamation, and color of law violation, especially since no findings of fact or hearings were held.

Kevin_Walker_Estate_et_al_v_Jay_Promisco_et_al__cacdce-25-00339__0029.0.pdf

 

 

 


📜 Procedural Posture of the Case

Judge Bernal granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), stating that:

  • Plaintiffs could not represent the trusts and estates without a licensed attorney;

  • Plaintiffs failed to file an opposition to the motion;

  • The complaint lacked clarity and failed to state a valid claim.

However, the Plaintiffs argue that:

  • They filed numerous sworn responses, notices of default, and conditional acceptances—which the court failed to recognize;

  • They filed under the lawful right to self-representation via attorney-in-fact, invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1654, U.C.C. § 3-402, and other statutory provisions;

  • They have presented unrebutted affidavits, which under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, demand summary judgment in their favor.


📦 Extensive Evidence Submitted

The Notice of Appeal includes an exhibit list containing over 50 items, ranging from:

  • UCC filings and recorded deeds,

  • IRS 1099-A, 1099-C, and 1099-OID forms,

  • Affidavits of default, dishonor, and non-response,

  • Contracts, bonds, bills of exchange, and notices of claim,

  • Evidence of judicial misconduct and concealment of filings.


🧾 Request for Relief

Plaintiffs request:

  1. Reversal of the Dismissal Order;

  2. Recognition of unrebutted affidavits and filings as lawful and binding;

  3. Corrective action for procedural violations, docket tampering, and constitutional breaches;

  4. Restoration of the Plaintiffs’ claims for summary judgment, criminal referral, sanctions, and enforcement.


🧠 Legal Implications

This appeal raises critical questions concerning:

  • The limits of judicial discretion,

  • The treatment of self-represented litigants acting via attorney-in-fact,

  • The court’s duty to docket and consider all valid filings,

  • The constitutional right to access the courts without prejudice or bias.

If the Ninth Circuit rules in favor of the Plaintiffs, it could set a precedent for private administrative remedy processes, the enforcement of paper-based appearances, and the treatment of unrebutted affidavits as self-authenticating legal instruments.

Leave your vote

3145411 points
More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

20410479 329d 40a2 8d4d 492022986bb5

Void Means Void: When Judges Act Without Jurisdiction, Their Orders Are Legal Nullities

When a court acts without lawful jurisdiction—whether through improper removal, lack of subject matter or personal authority, or constitutional violations—its orders are void ab initio and carry no legal force. This article explains how judges who continue to issue rulings after losing jurisdiction are not merely mistaken—they are acting under color of law and are subject to direct civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Backed by black-letter case law and statutory authority, this piece dismantles the myth of absolute judicial immunity and affirms a fundamental truth in law: jurisdiction is everything. When it’s gone, so is the court’s power to act.

Riverside County Commissioner Tamara Wagner Sued Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Railroading Plaintiffs Under Color of Law Without Jurisdiction

Riverside County Commissioner Tamara Wagner Sued Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Railroading Plaintiffs Under Color of Law Without Jurisdiction

In a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs Kevin: Realworldfare and Corey: Walker expose Riverside Court Commissioner Tamara L. Wagner’s unlawful railroading under color of law and total absence of jurisdiction. Despite a pending Quiet Title Action and perfected federal removal, Wagner issued void orders to dispossess the Walker Estate—yet the Estate remains lawfully and firmly in possession. Now under Article III jurisdiction, Judge Kenly Kiya Kato presides over the live case, which alleges constitutional violations, commercial fraud, and abuse of process. This is a high-stakes confrontation between equity and overreach—where immunity fails and facts prevail.

Judges Can Be Sued: Public Servants, Oaths, and Liability Under the Clearfield Doctrine AND 42 U.S.C. 1983

Judges Can Be Sued: Public Servants, Oaths, and Liability Under the Clearfield Doctrine AND 42 U.S.C. 1983

Judges are not immune when they operate outside lawful jurisdiction, conspire under color of law, or engage in commercial enforcement without consent. Under the Clearfield Doctrine, they become corporate actors subject to liability like any private party. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 enables civil rights lawsuits against them individually, while 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–242 provides for criminal penalties for conspiracy and deprivation of rights. Through tort law, UCC, and case law like Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1980), and Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984), judges can face personal and injunctive accountability.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.

error: Content is protected !!