Sworn Affidavits Uncover RICO Violations: Naji Doumit, FOCUS ESTATES, and Barry Lee O’Connor & Associates’ Mortgage Fraud Scheme Exposed

Sworn Affidavits Uncover RICO Violations: Naji Doumit, FOCUS ESTATES, and Barry Lee O’Connor & Associates’ Mortgage Fraud Scheme Exposed

A massive mortgage fraud scheme has been uncovered in Riverside County, California, implicating Naji Doumit, Mary Doumit, Daniel Doumit, MARINAJ PROPERTIES, FOCUS ESTATE INC, and Barry Lee O’Connor & Associates in RICO violations, deed fraud, and fraud upon the court. Sworn affidavits have confirmed a pattern of racketeering, fraudulent foreclosures, and unlawful property seizures, making this a clear case of real estate fraud and conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.

Barry Lee O'Connor - Fraud and extortion in unlawful detainer amidst affidavits

Barry Lee O’Connor – Fraud and extortion in unlawful detainer amidst four (4) unrebutted affidavits

Screen Shot 2025 03 23 at 3.22.56 PM
DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT

 

 

 

 

Screen Shot 2025 03 23 at 3.38.11 PM

Screen Shot 2025 03 23 at 3.38.17 PM

Screen Shot 2025 03 23 at 3.38.23 PM

 

 

 

Unveiling the Fraud: The Core of the Scheme

The Defendants in MARINAJ PROPERTIES, Naji Doumit v. Kevin Walker Estate, et al have exposed an orchestrated scheme where fraudulent Trustee’s Deeds Upon Sale were used to create false claims to property, allowing Naji Doumit, MARINAJ PROPERTIES, FOCUS ESTATES INC, and Barry Lee O’Connor & Associates to steal real estate under the guise of legal foreclosure and then unlawful detainer proceedings.

How the Scheme Works:

  1. Fraudulent Foreclosure Process – The perpetrators falsely claim legal authority to foreclose on properties despite having no valid interest or standing.

  2. Fraudulent, Void Ab Initio, and Fake Trustee’s Deeds Upon Sale – Illegitimate documents are recorded to fabricate ownership transfers that have no legal force or effect.

  3. Unlawful Court Actions – Armed with void deeds, they file frivolous lawsuits and unlawful detainer actions to forcibly remove rightful property owners.

  4. Fraud on the Court – These actions abuse the judicial system, constituting RICO predicate offenses such as mail fraud, wire fraud, and extortion.

Sworn Affidavits Confirm the Fraudulent Scheme

The Defendants’ affidavits expose the entire operation, providing undisputed evidence that the foreclosures and trustee’s deeds are fraudulent and void ab initio. Under UCC 3-505, the failure of the Plaintiff to rebut these affidavits constitutes tacit acquiescence, meaning the court must accept these facts as true.

Key Findings from the Affidavits:

  • The Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale is Fraudulent – The individual executing the deed had no lawful title or authority to transfer the property.

  • The Foreclosure Was Unlawful – No valid assignment or creditor relationship existed, making the foreclosure process illegitimate and void.

  • RICO Violations Are Evident – The fraudulent transfer of property through deceptive practices, extortion, and false court filings constitutes a clear pattern of racketeering activity.

Since these affidavits stand unrebutted, the law demands dismissal of all claims against the Defendants and legal action against the perpetrators.

RICO Violations and Criminal Implications

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., provides a framework for prosecuting criminal enterprises engaged in fraud, extortion, and theft through a pattern of illegal activity.

The Key RICO Violations in This Case:

  1. Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343) – Filing fraudulent documents and transmitting false claims through mail and electronic filings.

  2. Extortion (18 U.S.C. § 1951) – Unlawfully seizing property under false pretenses and using court threats to force compliance.

  3. Securities Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1348) – Fraudulent conveyance of real estate titles as securities for financial gain.

  4. Fraud on the Court (Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944)) – Using the judicial system to execute a fraudulent scheme.

If convicted under RICO, Naji Doumit, MARINAJ PROPERTIES, and Barry Lee O’Connor & Associates could face treble damages, asset forfeiture, and federal prison time.

Why the Defendants Are the Clear Winners

The Plaintiff’s case is built entirely on fraud, while the Defendants have submitted conclusive evidence proving the unlawful nature of the claims. The Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale is void, and the foreclosure was illegitimate—meaning the Plaintiff has no lawful claim to the property.

The Court Must Take Immediate Action:

  1. Cancel the fraudulent hearing and dismiss the case with prejudice.

  2. Declare the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale void ab initio and strike it from county records.

  3. Grant summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

  4. Sanction the Plaintiff for fraudulent misrepresentation and slander of title.

  5. Refer the case for criminal investigation under RICO statutes.

Conclusion: Justice Must Prevail

This case is a textbook example of mortgage fraud, RICO violations, and abuse of the legal system. With sworn affidavits confirming the fraudulent scheme, unlawful foreclosures, and void trustee’s deeds, the Defendants must prevail, and the perpetrators must face legal consequences.

The court has no legal or moral choice but to dismiss the case, restore the rightful property ownership, and hold Naji Doumit, MARINAJ PROPERTIES, and Barry Lee O’Connor & Associates accountable for their fraudulent and criminal actions.

Leave your vote

1182673 points
More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

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.

Riverside County Commissioner Tamara Wagner Sued Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Railroading Plaintiffs Under Color of Law Without Jurisdiction

Riverside County Commissioner Tamara Wagner Sued Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Railroading Plaintiffs Under Color of Law Without Jurisdiction

In a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs Kevin: Realworldfare and Corey: Walker expose Riverside Court Commissioner Tamara L. Wagner’s unlawful railroading under color of law and total absence of jurisdiction. Despite a pending Quiet Title Action and perfected federal removal, Wagner issued void orders to dispossess the Walker Estate—yet the Estate remains lawfully and firmly in possession. Now under Article III jurisdiction, Judge Kenly Kiya Kato presides over the live case, which alleges constitutional violations, commercial fraud, and abuse of process. This is a high-stakes confrontation between equity and overreach—where immunity fails and facts prevail.

Judges Can Be Sued: Public Servants, Oaths, and Liability Under the Clearfield Doctrine AND 42 U.S.C. 1983

Judges Can Be Sued: Public Servants, Oaths, and Liability Under the Clearfield Doctrine AND 42 U.S.C. 1983

Judges are not immune when they operate outside lawful jurisdiction, conspire under color of law, or engage in commercial enforcement without consent. Under the Clearfield Doctrine, they become corporate actors subject to liability like any private party. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 enables civil rights lawsuits against them individually, while 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–242 provides for criminal penalties for conspiracy and deprivation of rights. Through tort law, UCC, and case law like Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1980), and Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984), judges can face personal and injunctive accountability.

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 !!