Screen Shot 2025 06 24 at 3.12.02 PM

Riverside, California FEDERAL Judges Kenly Kato and Sunshine Sykes helping Tamara Wagner continue irreparable harm, engage In Blatant Misconduct, and Defy US Code, MANDATORY DISQUALIFICATION, AND DUE PROCESS

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.

THE JUDICIARY IS ON TRIAL:

Ultra Vires Actions, Mandatory Disqualification, and the Collapse of Due Process in the Central District of California

I. INTRODUCTION: THE RULE OF LAW IS UNDER ATTACK

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.


II. THE LAW IS CLEAR: DISQUALIFICATION IS MANDATORY

Under 28 U.S.C. § 144, when a party to a proceeding files a “timely and sufficient affidavit” alleging personal bias or prejudice by a judge, that judge must immediately cease participation in the case. This statute is not discretionary it is mandatory. As held in Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22 (1921), and reinforced in United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864 (9th Cir. 1980), a judge cannot review or rule on their own disqualification:

“The judge against whom an affidavit is filed shall proceed no further.” — 28 U.S.C. § 144

“The disqualification is automatic; the judge has no discretion.” — Berger, 255 U.S. at 35

Judge Kato’s continued involvement after verified affidavits were filed is a nullity in law. Every action taken since then is void ab initio, without legal force or effect.


III. ULTRA VIRES ORDERS AND ONGOING JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

Despite her statutory disqualification, Judge Kato issued a “Text Only Entry” on June 23, 2025, acknowledging emergency filings (Dkts. 34 and 35) and falsely claiming that no action would be taken until her own disqualification was resolved. This is a textbook example of an ultra vires act—one taken without jurisdiction and in defiance of statutory divestiture.

Such conduct is directly barred by law. In Sibla, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed:

“Once the affidavit is filed and determined to be legally sufficient on its face, the judge loses authority to act.”

Even administrative docketing or clerical “notices” issued by the disqualified judge are void. The law does not permit a disqualified judge to pause proceedings pending her own review; the statute itself does the pausing.

 


IV. COLLUSION AND CONFLICT: THE SHADOW OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY

Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes, to whom the disqualification motion was referred, previously served on the bench of Riverside County—the very jurisdiction of Defendant Judge Tamara Lucile Wagner, a named party in the case. This connection taints the proceedings with an appearance of bias and conflict of interest.

The integrity of judicial recusal cannot be preserved when one former colleague is tasked with reviewing the conduct of another. The perception of collusion is unavoidable—and in matters of due process, even the appearance of impropriety is enough to disqualify. See Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988).


V. IRREPARABLE HARM AND CONTINUING INJURY

The Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer irreparable harm as a direct result of the Court’s refusal to act. They were unlawfully dispossessed of their property under color of law and remain deprived of possession, shelter, and equity.

Their Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief (Dkt. 12)—requesting immediate restoration of property rights and equitable remedy—has remained unadjudicated for over two weeks.

The Court’s willful delay violates the Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment right to due process and contravenes the purpose of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 governing emergency injunctive relief. As held in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), and Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), the denial or delay of a hearing in the face of ongoing harm constitutes a constitutional violation.


VI. THE MANDAMUS PETITION: A LAST DEFENSE AGAINST TYRANNY

Faced with judicial obstruction, Plaintiffs have filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Petition seeks:

  • Immediate enforcement of Judge Kato’s disqualification;

  • Vacatur of all void orders;

  • Reassignment to a neutral, Article III judge;

  • Adjudication of the unaddressed Emergency Motion for Possessory Relief (Dkt. 12).

Mandamus is proper where a party has no other adequate remedy, where the harm is irreparable, and where the duty to act is ministerial—not discretionary. Bauman v. U.S. District Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977).


VII. CONCLUSION: THE JUDICIARY IS BEING TESTED

The judicial branch was created to be a check on power, not a tool of suppression or convenience. What is unfolding in this case is nothing short of systemic abuse: disqualified judges acting as if they still have jurisdiction, ignored emergency filings, and deliberate procedural obfuscation—all while families remain homeless, dispossessed, and unheard.

If the Ninth Circuit fails to act decisively, the message is clear: Federal courts are free to ignore statutory disqualification, withhold emergency relief, and violate due process with impunity.

Let it be known: The people are watching. The record is preserved. The Constitution still speaks.

Justice must prevail—or the people will remember who stood in its way.

Leave your vote

2627382 points
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 !!