Screen Shot 2025 01 29 at 9.03.04 AM

Riverside County Sheriff in Default and All Allegations now Admitted and Confirmed Facts including Racketeering, Conspiracy, Kidnapping, Coercion, Extortion, and more in Trillion Dollar ‘Right to Travel’ Lawsuit

California – The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, including Deputies Gregory D. Eastwood, Robert C. V. Bowman, William Pratt, and George Reyes, stands in legal default for failing to respond to a formal notice of conditional acceptance and affidavit from Kevin Walker. Under contract law, common law, and principles of fairness, an unrebutted affidavit is deemed conclusive truth. The Sheriff’s Department’s lack of response now confirms all allegations against them as true and legally binding.

By their own failure to respond and express silent agreement, the Sheriff’s Department has tacitly admitted to allegations of fraud, racketeering, identity theft, extortion, coercion, and conspiracy to deprive rights under the color of law. This result stems from their refusal to comply with the required legal processes under UCC § 3-505, which presumes dishonor in such circumstances.

Weaponizing the System Against Americans

The actions of the Riverside Sheriff’s Department and the California Highway Patrol (CHP) are part of a broader effort to weaponize the legal and enforcement system against American citizens. This coordinated misconduct isn’t just isolated corruption; it represents an intentional strategy to undermine the rights of everyday Americans by exploiting government powers and legal structures for financial gain and control.

By issuing fraudulent citations, coercing individuals into unlawful contracts, and depriving them of their basic constitutional rights, the Riverside Sheriff and CHP have engaged in a calculated scheme to exploit their positions for personal or departmental profit. These government officials and agencies are using their legal authority not to uphold the law, but to create a system of fear and compliance that forces people to pay fines and fees under duress. This weaponization of power not only threatens individual freedoms but also fosters a culture of intimidation that undermines the very purpose of law enforcement.

Racketeering and Conspiracy Between Riverside Sheriff and CHP

Kevin’s affidavits and security agreements clearly show a coordinated scheme between the Riverside Sheriff’s Department and the CHP, involving racketeering, extortion, and conspiracy. The violations confirmed include:

  • Fraudulent Citations and Contracts: Deputies and CHP officers issued citations to private individuals not engaged in commercial activities, treating them as binding contracts without proper disclosure or lawful consideration, making them invalid from the start.
  • Deprivation of the Right to Travel: CHP and Riverside Sheriff’s deputies unlawfully stopped and detained people, violating their right to travel freely.
  • Identity Theft and Extortion: Public officials unlawfully demanded documents and coerced individuals into contracts under duress, committing identity theft and extortion.
  • Racketeering and Fraudulent Revenue: The Sheriff’s Department and CHP engaged in a scheme to generate unlawful revenue through fraudulent citations, violating federal racketeering laws (18 U.S.C. § 1962).
  • Dishonor Under UCC § 3-505: The failure to respond to lawful notices under UCC § 3-505 confirms dishonor and legal liability for these claims.

These violations are now the basis of two pending lawsuits: one for $1 trillion against the Riverside Sheriff’s Department and another for $900 billion against the CHP and Riverside Sheriff. These cases seek criminal prosecution and injunctive relief.

Screen Shot 2025 01 29 at 9.26.09 AM

Legal Maxims Supporting Unrebutted Affidavits

The following legal principles show why the Sheriff’s Department’s silence is a legal admission:

  • “He who does not deny, admits.” — Silence is seen as acceptance.
  • “Truth is expressed in the form of an affidavit.” — An affidavit is the highest form of truth when unchallenged.
  • “An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce.” — In commercial law, unchallenged affidavits are binding.
  • “An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in commerce.” — Once unanswered, it is legally final.
  • “He who leaves the battlefield first loses by default.” — Not responding leads to automatic defeat.
  • “Silence is agreement when there is a duty to respond.” — Failure to respond is considered acceptance.

The $900 Billion Federal Lawsuit Against the CHP

The confirmed racketeering and conspiracy between the Riverside Sheriff and CHP are linked to the $900 billion federal travel lawsuit against the CHP. This lawsuit highlights the CHP’s dishonor under UCC § 3-505, failure to respond to lawful claims, and involvement in extortion and rights violations.

These breaches match the misconduct by the Riverside Sheriff, demonstrating the need for federal intervention and prosecution. Kevin Walker’s legal team is using these facts to show a broader pattern of abuse targeting private citizens.

 

Screen Shot 2025 01 23 at 9.03.05 AM

DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT

Screen Shot 2025 01 23 at 9.12.50 AM

 

 

 

Collateral Estoppel, Stare Decisis, and Res Judicata

The facts presented in this case are not merely allegations but are now legally admitted and established. The Riverside Sheriff’s Department and CHP are barred from contesting these facts due to collateral estoppel, which prevents them from relitigating issues that have already been conclusively settled. Furthermore, the legal principles of stare decisis and res judicata ensure that these decisions are binding and cannot be challenged in future litigation. These doctrines reinforce the validity of the claims and confirm that the parties involved have no legal grounds to dispute the established facts.

Summary Judgment is Due as a Matter of Law

Given the admitted facts, the Riverside Sheriff and CHP’s failure to respond, and the legal doctrines in play, summary judgment is due as a matter of law pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 437c and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The legal standard for summary judgment is met because there are no material facts in dispute, and the law is clear: the defendants are in default and are legally liable for their actions. Under Rule 56, summary judgment should be granted when the movant demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

In this case, the admitted facts and the defendants’ silence bar any dispute, and the law requires judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Demand for Federal Prosecution

Due to the Sheriff’s default and the seriousness of the conspiracy involving the CHP, this case is moving to federal court. Kevin Walker’s team is calling for criminal prosecution under federal laws, including 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights) and 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law), along with violations of the RICO Act. Additional claims of treason and constitutional violations will also be presented.

Justice Must Be Served

The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department and CHP are legally bound by their silence, confirming the truth of the claims against them. Justice will be pursued in federal court to ensure restitution, criminal charges, and injunctive relief.

This case sets an important precedent: silence is not protection—it is an admission. Public officials who violate the rights of the people will face the full force of the law. The weaponization of the legal system to control and exploit citizens must be stopped, and accountability will be sought in the highest courts.

Leave your vote

746291 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 !!