A federal RICO action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California unveils a calculated scheme orchestrated by attorneys Barry Lee O’Connor and John Bailey, in concert with MARINAJ PROPERTIES and the Doumit family. The Verified Complaint lays out a detailed pattern of racketeering involving simulated legal proceedings, fraudulent conveyance, and theft of trust assets through a void and defective Trustee’s Deed. Despite perfected title claims and unrebutted affidavits establishing lawful ownership, Judge Rachel A. Marquez has enabled the misconduct by shielding culpable parties and targeting the rightful beneficiaries asserting their rights. The suit cites violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 (RICO), 241 (conspiracy against rights), and 1341 (mail fraud), along with California Civil Code §§ 1709 (fraud) and 3346 (treble damages for wrongful injury to property). This case exemplifies judicial corruption—where bar-protected insiders act with impunity while private Americans are silenced. The court’s response will reveal whether justice, equity, and due process remain alive in California.
UCC §§ 1-103, 3-104, 3-601, and 3-603 operate as the foundation of lawful commercial remedy across all 50 states. Section 1-103 ensures equity, common law, and the Law Merchant remain enforceable alongside UCC processes. Section 3-104 defines what qualifies as a negotiable instrument—an essential element in debt discharge. Section 3-601 codifies the principle that all obligations can be discharged by contract, agreement, or valid performance. Section 3-603 delivers the lethal commercial strike: once lawful tender is made—even if refused—the obligation is discharged as a matter of law. These statutes, codified in every U.S. jurisdiction, are the legal artillery that allow secured parties and private trusts to assert control, tender discharge, and permanently terminate fraudulent or unperfected claims. Use them with precision—or be used by those who will.
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.
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 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.
Riverside County officials, deputies, and unlicensed “commissioners” are now in verified default, dishonor, and commercial liability for unrebutted RICO, fraud, and color-of-law crimes. Kevin: Realworldfare has removed case MISW2501134 to federal court, triggering lien enforcement and formal demand for disclosure of liability bonds. Evidence includes unrebutted affidavits, a $1 trillion commercial lien, and documented bond fraud by inactive attorneys Jeremiah Raxter and Charles Rogers. Federal claims include kidnapping, extortion, impersonation, and deprivation of rights under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–242, 1961–1964. Brady-listed deputies remain under active investigation. If justice is not delivered, top national officials will be named in new federal actions for willful neglect and complicity.
Judge Wesley Hsu’s and/or Magistrate Maria Audero’s Court took a significant step toward restoring judicial integrity by docketing and honorably backdating Kevin: Realworldfare’s VERIFIED Affidavit asserting State Citizenship and constitutional standing in case 5:25-cv-00646-WLH-MAA. This filing directly rebuts prior false presumptions labeling him a U.S. citizen or ward of the State. In contrast to prior judicial misconduct by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, who obstructed identical filings, Hsu and Audero’s actions demonstrate procedural fidelity and impartiality. Their conduct marks a hopeful departure from the systemic corruption plaguing courts in Riverside County. The case highlights growing public scrutiny and demand for lawful adjudication based on record, not presumption.
Kevin and Donnabella Realworldfare have lawfully changed their names, creating a new family dynasty with a name never before used in recorded history. Their children, Adonis and Zoiya Realworldfare, become the first heirs to carry forward this sovereign legacy. The Realworldfare name represents authorship, truth, and freedom from inherited fiction. This name change marks the foundation of a private, self-governed bloodline rooted in purpose and lawful inheritance.
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.
Tamara L. Wagner (CA Bar #188613), a licensed attorney acting as a judicial officer in Riverside County, is now at the center of a federal removal action citing judicial fraud, civil rights violations, and RICO conspiracy. Defendants allege she is unlawfully practicing law from the bench without constitutional authority, advancing proceedings in open dishonor. Verified affidavits, UCC filings, and summary judgment demands were ignored, leading to claims of railroading and systemic court corruption. The case, removed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1443, and 1446, is now pending in federal court.
Attorney Monika Vermani (CA Bar #355080) has been formally named in a high-level commercial fraud and racketeering operation involving Riverside County’s unlawful prosecution of a secured private trust estate. Verified affidavits, unrebutted notices, and perfected UCC filings establish that Vermani is proceeding without lawful jurisdiction, operating under color of law, and aiding in the unauthorized securitization and monetization of private estate assets. The record demands $100 million in damages, immediate dismissal with prejudice, and criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 1961–1968 (RICO). This case exposes a systemic pattern of commercial fraud, identity theft, and administrative conspiracy masquerading as routine judicial process.
Attorney Monika Vermani (CA Bar #355080) has been formally named in a high-level commercial fraud and racketeering operation involving Riverside County’s unlawful prosecution of a secured private trust estate. Verified affidavits, unrebutted notices, and perfected UCC filings establish that Vermani is proceeding without lawful jurisdiction, operating under color of law, and aiding in the unauthorized securitization and monetization of private estate assets. The record demands $100 million in damages, immediate dismissal with prejudice, and criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 1961–1968 (RICO). This case exposes a systemic pattern of commercial fraud, identity theft, and administrative conspiracy masquerading as routine judicial process.
A U.S. citizen does not possess agency on behalf of the United States government unless expressly appointed by statute, contract, or lawful delegation. Mere citizenship does not establish authority to act for or represent the federal government in any legal or commercial capacity. In reality, the U.S. citizen is the governed and regulated party—operating under federal jurisdiction, not within it. Only properly delegated agents—such as public officers, attorneys, or fiduciaries acting under written authority—may speak or act on behalf of the United States. Recognizing this separation is essential in all matters involving legal standing, jurisdiction, and commercial equity.