PHH Mortgage’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. exemplifies judicial overreach, procedural abuse, and a blatant disregard for constitutional rights. The motion falsely asserts that a trust cannot be represented by an attorney-in-fact, denying individuals their right to self-representation and claiming that only "attorneys at law" can act in court. This contradicts established legal principles, including the American Bar Association’s recognition of power of attorney as a legitimate instrument granting broad authority. Additionally, the court has obstructed the record by refusing to file Plaintiffs’ documents, prompting a writ of mandamus to expose the Riverside Federal Court’s misconduct. This case underscores a broader pattern of legal corruption, defamation, and deprivation of rights under the color of law.
The United States District Court, Central District of California (Riverside), stands accused of obstructing justice, tampering with records, and violating due process by unlawfully refusing to file and docket legitimate pleadings. Plaintiffs KEVIN WALKER ESTATE, et al., hav presented irrefutable evidence of judicial misconduct, calling for criminal prosecution, sanctions, and immediate enforcement. Despite proof of receipt, court officials have concealed filings, manipulated records, and obstructed legal proceedings, in direct violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512, 1519, and 2071. With Pam Bondi CC’d on the correspondence, high-level authorities have been alerted to this grave constitutional violation that threatens judicial integrity and fundamental rights.
Central to the Plaintiffs’ claims are five (5) unrebutted affidavits submitted in compliance with UCC § 3-505, which explicitly establish the Defendants’ dishonor and tacit admission to all claims outlined therein. These affidavits, accompanied by an Affidavit Certificate of Non-Response, stand as irrefutable evidence in commerce. Under binding legal principles, such as stare decisis, res judicata, and collateral estoppel, the facts contained in the affidavits are now deemed conclusively established and uncontested. Despite United States Postal Service (USPS) tracking records confirming that the filings were successfully delivered twice—once via Registered Mail and once via Express Mail—the documents are not reflected on the court docket. Additionally, one (1) critical notice sent to the court has gone missing entirely, with USPS failing to mark it as delivered or account for its whereabouts.This disappearance of properly filed documents raises serious concerns about potential malicious interference, fraud upon the court, and obstruction of justice.
A verified complaint submitted to the court functions not only as a legal pleading but also as a negotiable debt instrument and a special deposit, as established under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2041, 2042, and 2045. Additionally, it is classified as a financial asset governed by 12 U.S.C. § 1813(l)(1), 31 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(62), and 31 U.S.C. § 3302. Courts operate as depository institutions, responsible for receiving, managing, and investing funds, with all case-related deposits held in trust by the U.S. Treasury. Furthermore, under 26 U.S.C. §§ 1271-1275, a verified complaint qualifies as an Original Issue Discount (OID) security, mandating proper financial reporting. Every legal case is effectively a commercial transaction, in which funds, securities, and judgments are recorded and managed within the court’s custodial accounts. Understanding a verified complaint as a financial obligation allows for proper accounting and the reclamation of funds through the use of IRS Forms 1099-A and 1099-OID, thereby ensuring transparency and compliance with federal financial regulations.
Corruption within the judicial system, including fraudulent accounting, improper banking practices, and organized crime, poses a severe threat to justice and financial stability. Fortunately, whistleblowers have powerful tools at their disposal to report such misconduct to the Department of the Treasury – Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Two of the most effective mechanisms for exposing financial fraud involving corrupt courts, clerks, judges, and officials are IRS Form 3949-A (Information Referral) and IRS Form 211 (Application for Award for Original Information).
Article III courts, established under the U.S. Constitution, are essential for protecting rights in civil contract disputes involving unrebutted affidavits. They uphold due process guaranteed by the Constitution, recognize uncontested evidence, and offer both legal and equitable remedies. With exclusive equity jurisdiction, these courts can enforce obligations, issue injunctions, and affirm binding agreements, ensuring justice and constitutional compliance
This case law summary outlines essential legal principles regarding jurisdiction, standing, and procedural requirements in financial and mortgage disputes. Courts consistently invalidate judgments lacking proper jurisdiction and stress the necessity for plaintiffs to establish legal standing. Instances of fraudulent lending practices, including breaches of federal regulations, have resulted in dismissals with prejudice. Rulings curtail corporate overreach by banks, prohibiting lending credit and ultra vires contracts. Evidentiary standards highlight the importance of adequate affidavits and the duty to disclose information to prevent fraud. Contract principles reaffirm the voiding of agreements founded on illegal consideration.
"Pro Se" denotes voluntarily representing oneself within the court’s jurisdiction, thereby consenting to its authority and procedures. In contrast, "Pro Per" allows individuals to assert their personal status and directly challenge the court’s jurisdiction, avoiding representation as a legal fiction. This distinction underscores the significance of an Affidavit of Power of Attorney In Fact, which empowers an Attorney In Fact to represent a trust without requiring a licensed attorney in the public jurisdiction. Understanding these legal roles is crucial in navigating court standing and asserting constitutional and contractual rights effectively.
Under statutes, codes, and public policy, bills of exchange are legally recognized as currency since they discharge debt obligations in commerce. HJR 192, 31 USC 5118, and 12 USC 412 establish that debt instruments have replaced gold as legal payment. UCC provisions (3-603, 3-311, and 3-601) affirm that presenting a bill of exchange settles debts, even if rejected.
The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, including Deputies Gregory D. Eastwood, Robert C. V. Bowman, William Pratt, and George Reyes, stands in legal default for failing to respond to a formal notice of conditional acceptance and affidavit from Kevin Walker. Under contract law, common law, and principles of fairness, an unrebutted affidavit is deemed conclusive truth. The Sheriff’s Department’s lack of response now confirms all allegations against them as true and legally binding. By their own failure to respond and express silent agreement, the Sheriff’s Department has tacitly admitted to allegations of fraud, racketeering, identity theft, extortion, coercion, and conspiracy to deprive rights under the color of law. This result stems from their refusal to comply with the required legal processes under UCC § 3-505, which presumes dishonor in such circumstances.
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.