Fraud, Color of Law, and RICO Violations by Attorney Monika Vermani (Bar #355080) Exposed in Riverside County, California

Fraud, Color of Law, and RICO Violations by Attorney Monika Vermani (Bar #355080) Exposed in Riverside County, California

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.

Also read on Realworldfare.com

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA | Case No. MISW2501134
Kevin: Walker, acting as Executor, Fiduciary, and Beneficiary of the ™KEVIN WALKER© Estate and Private Trust, has placed on the public record definitive proof that Riverside County and its agents are committing multiple felonies under color of law, including:

  • Commercial fraud

  • Identity theft

  • RICO violations

  • Deprivation of constitutional rights

  • Forgery and unauthorized use of estate instruments


⚠️ ATTORNEY OF RECORD COMMITTING FRAUD UNDER COLOR OF LAW

The California Bar-licensed attorney facilitating this ongoing fraud on the court and conspiracy against rights is:

Monika Vermani
California State Bar No. 355080
Riverside County District Attorney’s Office
30755D Auld Rd, 3rd Floor, Murrieta, CA 92563
📞 (951) 304-5547
📧 monikavermani@rivcoda.org
🔗 State Bar Profile

Monika Vermani #355080

Monika Vermani #355080

Attorney Monika Vermani is directly responsible for:

  • Proceeding without jurisdiction, standing, or an injured party;

  • Ignoring unrebutted affidavits of constitutional authority, trust control, and estate rights;

  • Attempting to enforce a fraudulent, non-consensual commercial contract in the form of a citation;

  • Conspiring with state agents and judges in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–242, 1341, 1951, and 1961–1968 (RICO).

These acts are felonies—not mistakes.
This is no longer a misunderstanding of law.
This is an organized scheme to commit fraud under color of office, using threats, coercion, and dishonored commercial paper to extort performance from a private trust.

Attorney Vermani’s license number is now publicly associated with:

  • Racketeering activity under RICO;

  • Mail fraud, securities violations, and identity theft;

  • And complicity in the unlawful conversion of estate trust assets for unlawful benefit.

 

Screen Shot 2025 04 22 at 3.11.07 PM

DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT

 

 

📬 Proof of Service: USPS Delivery Confirms Court Received the Demand and Suppressed It

On April 1, 2025, at 11:11 AM, the Verified Notice of Conditional Acceptance, Mandatory Counterclaim, and Demand for Sanctions was delivered via Registered Mail to the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office in Murrieta, CA.
Tracking Number: RF775824380US
Delivery Status: “Delivered, Left with Individual

This receipt is irrefutable proof—backed by USPS commercial recordkeeping and the Federal Mailbox Rule—that the documents were properly received. Under:

  • Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427 (1932)

  • U.S. v. Bowen, 414 F.2d 1268 (3rd Cir. 1969)

  • Federal Rule of Evidence 301

  • 26 U.S.C. § 7502

…the mailing creates a legal presumption of receipt, and the burden of denial lies entirely on the recipient.

Despite this, Riverside County and Monika Vermani willfully failed to enter the filing into the record. This act of concealment constitutes:

  • Tampering with the official court record

  • Obstruction of justice

  • Fraudulent concealment under color of law

  • Further evidence of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1962

Their silence, after verified receipt, is not benign—it is dishonor in commerce and conspiracy in law.

Screen Shot 2025 04 22 at 3.03.45 PM


📜 ESTATE CLAIM, TRUST LAW, AND CONSTITUTIONAL STANDING

Walker has lawfully:

  • Perfected his estate interest with a UCC-1 Financing Statement;

  • Terminated presumed contracts, including the driver’s license agreement (commercial bond);

  • Reserved all rights under UCC § 1-308 and Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution.

His verified status as a State Citizen / Non-Citizen National has been recorded, and his commercial affidavits remain unrebutted, meaning:

All alleged claims by Riverside are now legally null and void.


📢 ONGOING CRIMES BY RIVERSIDE COUNTY

Riverside is actively engaged in:

  • Color of law enforcement without jurisdiction or standing;

  • Extortion and constructive fraud via citations disguised as negotiable securities;

  • Forgery of trust-based identity instruments for financial conversion;

  • Conspiracy to retaliate after Walker filed a federal RICO case.


🧨 FEDERAL INJUNCTION & DAMAGES DEMANDED

Walker’s parallel federal case (5:25−cv−00646−WLH−MAA) seeks:

  • Immediate injunction against further action;

  • $100 million in damages;

  • Permanent restraining orders against named parties;

  • Criminal referrals to the U.S. Department of Justice.


❌ RIVERSIDE = RACKETEERING ENTERPRISE

This is not administration. It’s organized crime.
The filings prove Riverside County is:

  • Operating as a rogue administrative body without lawful delegation;

  • Monetizing estate names and instruments for unjust enrichment;

  • Suppressing private rights, commercial due process, and lawful remedy.

Leave your vote

3749495 points
More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

Judicial Integrity in Action: Judge Wesley Hsu and Magistrate Maria Audero Honorably Uphold Due Process in Kevin: Walker vs Chad Bianco RICO and 42 U.S.C. 1983 Case

Judicial Integrity in Action: Judge Wesley Hsu and Magistrate Maria Audero Honorably Uphold Due Process in Kevin: Walker vs Chad Bianco RICO and 42 U.S.C. 1983 Case

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.

Affidavit Delivered to Judge Wesley Hsu's Court in Kevin Walker vs Chad Bianco Remains Undocketed — Delay or Concealment? Benefit of the Doubt Extended, For Now

Affidavit Delivered to Judge Wesley Hsu’s Court in Kevin Walker vs Chad Bianco Remains Undocketed — Delay or Concealment? Benefit of the Doubt Extended, For Now

This article exposes a troubling pattern of judicial misconduct in California’s federal courts, where verified affidavits asserting State Citizenship and national status have been received but concealed from the official record. Specifically, it highlights the nondocketing of a key affidavit in Kevin: Walker v. Bianco et al. before Judge Wesley Hsu, while extending temporary benefit of the doubt due to possible administrative backlog. The article also touches on and reconfirms how Judge Jesus G. Bernal falsely claimed non-response in a related case to justify an unlawful dismissal, now under appeal. These actions collectively suggest systemic obstruction, due process violations, and potential criminal liability under multiple federal statutes.

Jurisdiction Citizenship and Federal Zones The Truth Behind Wong Kim Ark and the Buck Act of 1940

Jurisdiction, Citizenship, and Federal Zones: The Truth Behind Wong Kim Ark and the Buck Act of 1940

This article explores the crucial legal distinctions between a State Citizen and a U.S. citizen (14th Amendment subject) by analyzing the Supreme Court case Wong Kim Ark v. United States and the jurisdictional implications of the Buck Act of 1940. It reveals how federal jurisdiction is not based on geography, but on consent and contractual participation in federal benefit programs. Through detailed legal reasoning, it explains how one can owe allegiance to the United States as a constitutional Republic without being subject to its corporate statutory codes. The piece provides actionable remedies for rebutting federal presumptions and restoring lawful State Citizenship.

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 !!