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

Fraud Upon the Court and Judicial Complicity: Judge Marquez Aids RICO Conspirators and Attempts to Punish "the People"

Fraud Upon the Court and Judicial Complicity: Judge Marquez Aids RICO Conspirators and Attempts to Punish “the People”

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.

How the UCC is Codified in EVERY State: A State-by-State Codification of the UCC and Core Commercial Law Principles

How the UCC is Codified in EVERY State: A State-by-State Codification of the UCC and Core Commercial Law Principles

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.

20410479 329d 40a2 8d4d 492022986bb5

Void Means Void: When Judges Act Without Jurisdiction, Their Orders Are Legal Nullities

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.

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 !!