What a California Court Commissioner Really Is and how Charles Rogers Jeremiah Raxter are Engaged in RICO and Felonies in Riverside California 1 1

Riverside, California: What a California Court Commissioner Really Is and how Fraudulent “Commissioner” Charles Rogers, Jeremiah Raxter are Engaged in RICO and Felonies

Charles Rogers (Bar #64530) and Jeremiah D. Raxter (Bar #276811) are engaged in an ongoing scheme of judicial fraud and racketeering in Riverside County, California. Both individuals are inactive members of the California State Bar and have no lawful authority to act as judges or commissioners. Their acts — including issuing bench warrants, signing orders, and presiding over court matters — are void ab initio and constitute federal felonies under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 1962. Their actions represent a criminal enterprise under color of law, demanding immediate investigation, disbarment, and prosecution. Public notice is hereby given that all their proceedings are fraudulent and without legal force.

In Riverside County, California, individuals Charles Rogers (California Bar #64530) and Jeremiah D. Raxter (California Bar #276811) are engaged in a blatant and ongoing scheme of judicial fraud, unauthorized practice of law, and systematic deprivation of rights under color of law.

Both Rogers and Raxter are currently inactive members of the California State Bar and thus have no lawful authority to act as judges, commissioners, or officers of the court. Their actions in presiding over court proceedings, issuing warrants, signing orders, and exercising judicial powers are executed without lawful authority and are VOID AB INITIO — having no legal force or effect from inception.

  • Charles Rogers (Bar #64530), listed as a “judge,” is currently an inactive member of the California State Bar and has no lawful authority to preside over judicial proceedings. Acting without a valid license is a felony under California Business and Professions Code §§ 6125 and 6126.

Public Notice of Criminal Enterprise, RICO Violations, and Systematic Fraud Committed by John Charles Rogers, Jeremiah D. Raxter, and Monika Vermani in Riverside County

 

 

 

  • Jeremiah D. Raxter(Bar #276811), purporting to act as a “commissioner,” is likewise an inactive member of the California State Bar and has no authority to issue orders or warrants. His acts include the illegal issuance of a bench warrant without jurisdiction, rendering all acts VOID AB INITIO.

Public Notice of Criminal Enterprise, RICO Violations, and Systematic Fraud Committed by John Charles Rogers, Jeremiah D. Raxter, and Monika Vermani in Riverside County

⚖️ Summary of Violations:

 

Issue Reality
Must commissioners and judges be active licensed attorneys? ✅ Yes, mandatory under California law
Are Rogers and Raxter actively licensed? ❌ No, both are inactive and unauthorized
Are their judicial acts lawful? ❌ No, their acts are null and void
Is acting without a license a crime? ✅ Yes, felony under California Business and Professions Code § 6126
Are these acts violations of federal civil rights? ✅ Yes, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242

📜 Criminal and Civil Violations Committed:

  • Unauthorized Practice of Law — California Business and Professions Code §§ 6125, 6126

  • Fraudulent Personation of Judicial Officers — California Penal Code § 115

  • Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law — 18 U.S.C. § 242

  • Conspiracy Against Rights — 18 U.S.C. § 241

  • Obstruction of Justice — 18 U.S.C. § 1503

  • Racketeering (RICO Activity) — 18 U.S.C. § 1962

  • Extortion Under Color of Official Right — 18 U.S.C. § 872

 


📜 Elements of the Criminal Racketeering Enterprise:

 

Element Facts
Predicate Acts Unauthorized practice, issuance of void legal instruments, deprivation of rights
Pattern of Racketeering Activity Multiple related acts of fraud and extortion under guise of judicial authority
Enterprise Public offices (courts) used as fronts for unauthorized and criminal operations
Conspiracy Coordination and concealment of unlawful status to extract fines, penalties, and control over property

 


🛑 Legal Status of Their Acts:

  • Any orders, warrants, judgments, or rulings issued by Rogers or Raxter are null, void, and unenforceable.

  • Their actions constitute federal felonies and expose them to immediate civil and criminal liability.

  • Their continued operation under color of law creates ongoing violations of the United States Constitution, California Constitution, and multiple statutory protections.

 


🚨 Public Demand:

Immediate investigation, removal from any position of purported authority, disbarment proceedings, criminal indictment, and civil rights enforcement actions are warranted against Charles Rogers and Jeremiah D. Raxter based on their ongoing fraud and criminal misconduct under color of law.


Conclusion:

The public is hereby noticed that Charles Rogers and Jeremiah D. Raxter are acting unlawfully, without jurisdiction, and without proper license authority.
Their actions represent a clear and present threat to due process, constitutional protections, and the lawful administration of justice in California.

All affected parties are urged to challenge any proceedings presided over by these individuals and to demand immediate vacatur of all fraudulent and void orders issued under their unauthorized authority.

Leave your vote

3838892 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 !!