Screen Shot 2025 06 10 at 5.35.45 AM

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

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.

President Trump Pam Bondi, and Kash Patel do nothing as Riverside County’s Tamara Wagner Ignores Federal Supremacy and Deprives Americans of their home, property, and rights without due process. Tamara Wagner acts without jurisdiction and receives shielding from Federal Judge Kenly Kiya Kato, who states Federal removals do not strip a judge of jurisdiction and allows California natives and Americans to have their house stolen by way of a void and fraudulent “Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale”.

 

Riverside, California, June 10, 2025 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ —

 

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

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.

Leave your vote

More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

Screen Shot 2025 07 08 at 9.35.01 PM

EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT MANDAMUS VANISHES: Ninth Circuit Fraud, Tampering, Judicial Collusion, and a Federal Cover-Up Seems Unequivocal

Federal courts are now under scrutiny after a verified Writ of Mandamus vanished from the Ninth Circuit docket without explanation—raising grave concerns of judicial tampering, fraud, and systemic misconduct. Judge Sunshine Sykes defied clear jurisdictional divestiture by issuing rulings on a matter under appellate review, violating 28 U.S.C. § 144 and § 1651. This article exposes a disturbing pattern of ultra vires acts, denial of due process, and potential RICO violations implicating both district and appellate judges.Ask ChatGPT

lawful tender discharges the debt

When the Debt Is Discharged but the LIEN Remains: Why Auto and Home Loan Lenders Who Ignore Lawful Tender Are Committing Fraud and Commercial Crimes

This article delivers a devastating legal breakdown proving that lawful tender—once made and unrebutted—discharges auto loan debt under UCC §§ 3-601, 3-603, 3-310, 2-206, and 1-103, as codified in Cal. Com. Code §§ 3601, 3603, 3310, 2206, 1103, Fla. Stat. §§ 673.6011, 673.6031, 673.3101, 672.206, 671.103, and N.C.G.S. §§ 25-3-601, 25-3-603, 25-3-310, 25-2-206, 25-1-103. It exposes refusal to release a lien after lawful discharge as actionable fraud, conversion, embezzlement, and obstruction under state and federal law. With verified case law and commercial principles, it explains how silence equals acceptance and how creditors become commercially estopped. A must-read for secured parties, fiduciaries, and equity claimants demanding lien removal, declaratory relief, and commercial remedy.

Screen Shot 2025 06 28 at 4.55.33 PM

How a Perfected Security Agreement and UCC Filings Strip Servicers of Foreclosure Rights

A properly executed Security Agreement assigning all assets, rights, and interests to a private trust—paired with a UCC-1 financing statement and UCC-3 amendment claiming the Deed of Trust and Note—lawfully establishes the trust as the secured party and real party in interest. This perfected interest, under UCC §§ 9-203, 9-509, 3-301, and supported by controlling case law (e.g., Carpenter v. Longan, Ibanez, Veal), strips any servicer or third-party of standing to foreclose unless they possess the original Note, prove an unbroken chain of title, and rebut the trust’s perfected claim. Without that, all foreclosure attempts become void ab initio, commercial dishonor, and legal trespass on private trust property.

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 !!