In an unthinkable display of judicial defiance, the United States District Court for the Central District of California—specifically Judge Kenly Kiya Kato—has openly violated federal disqualification statutes and constitutional protections, triggering a full-scale procedural breakdown. The Plaintiffs, Kevin Realworldfare and Corey Walker, filed a timely and sufficient affidavit of bias under 28 U.S.C. § 144—invoking a mandatory disqualification. Yet, Judge Kato continues to issue orders and direct proceedings as if the law simply does not apply to her. This is not a mere procedural oversight. This is a calculated refusal to follow the law, a violation of the U.S. Constitution, and an unmistakable act of judicial misconduct.
In the heart of Riverside County, California, a brazen miscarriage of justice is unfolding. Judges, sworn to uphold the Constitution, are instead aiding in the unlawful dispossession of private property and the systemic violation of civil rights under color of law. At the center of this scandal are Judge Tamara Lucile Wagner and Federal Judge Kenly Kiya Kato, whose actions—or calculated inactions—have laid bare the depth of judicial corruption in California’s state and federal courts.
Tamara Wagner Acted Without Jurisdiction – April 28, 2025 to May 12, 2025
On April 28, 2025 an unlawful detainer case was removed to federal court. Tamara Wagner laughed at that and ignored Federal preemption, federal supremacy, and her divesture of jurisdiction, and railroaded a family. She issued a writ of possession without any jurisdiction at all and allowed a Chinese man named Kai Fan to steal their home of over 20 years. The Riverside county county record shows the home was FULLY RECONVEYED in 2007 and since has been tranferred to a private trust.
Despit this all, Tamara Wagner acted without jurisdiction and dispossessed them from their family home. On May 6, 2025, a verified Quiet Title Complaint was filed in Riverside County Superior Court (Case No. CVRI2502206), establishing a lawful and pending adjudication of title to the property located at 12232 Brianwood Drive, Riverside, CA 92503. The grant deed evidencing beneficial title was recorded to their trust, yet Judge Wagner proceeded to issue an unlawful Writ of Possession on May 12, 2025, six days after jurisdiction had furhter transferred to the Quiet Title court and despite no valid judgment or superior claim being presented by the opposing party.
Commissioner Tamara Wagner Deprives Americans of their homes, rights, and property without jurisdiction or due process and Trump, Pam Bondi, and Kash Patel allow it
Commissioner Tamara Wagner Deprives Americans of their homes, rights, and property without jurisdiction or due process and Trump, Pam Bondi, and Kash Patel allow it
Federal statue is clear, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d):
“The State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.”
28 U.S.C. § 1450 – Preservation of Federal Jurisdiction Over Removed Cases
“All injunctions, orders, and other proceedings had in such action prior to its removal shall remain in full force and effect until dissolved or modified by the district court.”
Supporting Case Law:
- Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U.S. 315, 328 (1889) – “After removal…the state court loses all jurisdiction and its subsequent proceedings are absolutely void.”
- Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F.2d 59, 62 (9th Cir. 1974) – A judge has no immunity for acts done in the clear absence of jurisdiction.
- Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844, 849 (9th Cir. 1980) – Even judges lose judicial immunity when they act without jurisdiction.
- Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006) – Federal courts can and must adjudicate state-related matters when federal jurisdiction is proper — especially where rights are being violated.
Once proper removal to this Court was effectuated on April 28, 2025, the Riverside County Superior Court was divested of jurisdiction. Any actions taken by the state court thereafter — including the May 1, 2025 prove-up trial, the May 2 and May 12 Writs of Possession, and all enforcement efforts by Defendant Tamara Wagner and others — are void ab initio.
This constitutes a textbook case of ultra vires conduct—actions taken beyond any lawful judicial power. Wagner acted without subject matter jurisdiction, without personal jurisdiction over the real party in interest, and in clear violation of due process and the California Constitution, Article I §§ 1, 7, and 19.
Plaintiffs filed a Verified Complaint for Equitable and Injunctive Relief in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 5:25-cv-01330). Emergency motions and verified affidavits were submitted detailing the void writ, jurisdictional defects, and ongoing irreparable harm. But instead of acting swiftly to protect constitutional rights, Judge Kenly Kiya Kato not only ignored critical facts but mischaracterized the Plaintiffs as “pro se”—a false designation—and claimed the federal court could not intervene in a matter that had already been lawfully removed.
The assertion that Defendant Judge Tamara Wagner is protected by judicial immunity is factually and legally incorrect. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that judicial immunity does not apply to:
- Non-judicial acts (Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988)); and
- Judicial acts performed in the clear absence of jurisdiction (Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978); Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F.2d 59 (9th Cir. 1974)).
Defendant Wagner acted without jurisdiction after the case was removed, and thus any claim of immunity fails as a matter of law.
This is a blatant dereliction of duty. Federal jurisdiction divests state authority upon removal, especially when civil rights and property are at stake. Judge Kato’s failure to act is more than negligence—it’s protectionism. She is shielding Judge Wagner from liability by refusing to enforce the controlling federal statutes and preserve the Plaintiffs’ rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 U.S.C. § 242.
Case Law Supports Relief—Yet the Courts Refuse to Apply It.
Judges do not have immunity when acting in the absence of jurisdiction:
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978): No judicial immunity for acts taken clearly without jurisdiction.
- Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974): No immunity exists when state actors violate clearly established constitutional rights.
- Johnson v. Mississippi, 403 U.S. 212 (1971): Courts must vacate judgments based on constitutionally infirm proceedings.
- Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980): Judges who conspire with private actors are not immune.
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976): Loss of constitutional rights constitutes irreparable injury.
Despite citing these cases, providing unrebutted affidavits, and showing a clear chain of title, Judge Kato failed to protect the Plaintiffs and actively allowed unlawful dispossession to stand. Now they have been robbed of their entire estate and remain homeless. — Is this Donald Trump’s America? Pam Bondi and Kash Patel’s ?
A Systemic Pattern of Judicial Collusion
This is not an isolated incident. Californians are seeing a pattern of judges enabling lawlessness:
Jesus G. Bernal has been accused of concealing filings and ignoring jurisdictional defects.
Michael N. Nicholson in Florida summarily dismisses civil rights claims without factual or jurisdictional basis.
Tamara Wagner issues void writs and facilitates property theft without due process.
Kenly Kiya Kato covers for them.
The judiciary is becoming a fortress for fraud, rather than a forum for justice.
Where is the justice? Where is the oversight? Where is president Trump? Pam Bondi?
This ia s horrendous injustice that has left a family devastated and dispossessed from their own property.
