Sworn affidavits reveal a massive real estate fraud scheme, exposing Naji Doumit, Barry Lee O’Connor & Associates, and MARINAJ PROPERTIES for RICO violations, fraudulent foreclosures, and property theft. Discover how fake Trustee’s Deeds and unlawful court filings were used to seize properties illegally.
The Kevin Walker Estate has taken decisive legal action against what it describes as judicial fraud, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice within the United States District Court, Central District of California, Eastern Division. Despite filing a Verified Notice of Judicial Fraud, the court has failed to acknowledge it, further solidifying allegations of intentional misconduct and procedural bad faith.
The Kevin Walker Estate, et al., has intensified its legal fight for rights, accountability, and justice by filing a Writ of Mandamus and an Order Granting Default and Summary Judgment, demanding the court enforce Defendants’ binding default and immediate liability for $1.1 billion. The court has already identified PHH Mortgage Services’ Motion to Dismiss as procedurally defective and subject to striking, further evidencing Defendants’ dishonor. With Chevron deference overturned, the court is bound to rule strictly on constitutional and statutory law, without arbitrary dismissal. Should the court fail to act, Plaintiffs are prepared to escalate the matter through appellate relief, federal enforcement, and sanctions for obstruction of justice. This case has the potential to establish a landmark precedent in ensuring financial institutions and courts adhere to the rule of law.
The Kevin Walker Estate, et al., has intensified its legal fight for rights, accountability, and justice by filing a Writ of Mandamus and an Order Granting Default and Summary Judgment, demanding the court enforce Defendants’ binding default and immediate liability for $1.1 billion. The court has already identified PHH Mortgage Services’ Motion to Dismiss as procedurally defective and subject to striking, further evidencing Defendants’ dishonor. With Chevron deference overturned, the court is bound to rule strictly on constitutional and statutory law, without arbitrary dismissal. Should the court fail to act, Plaintiffs are prepared to escalate the matter through appellate relief, federal enforcement, and sanctions for obstruction of justice. This case has the potential to establish a landmark precedent in ensuring financial institutions and courts adhere to the rule of law.
The authority to represent a trust as an attorney-in-fact is firmly established under federal law, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and longstanding legal precedent. Contrary to common misconceptions, a trust operates as a contractual entity, granting it the ability to be lawfully represented by an authorized agent, including an attorney-in-fact. This article explores the legal framework affirming this right, highlights key statutory provisions, and provides strategies for enforcing it against courts and financial institutions that unlawfully challenge or deny such authority.
The authority to represent a trust as an attorney-in-fact is firmly established under federal law, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and longstanding legal precedent. Contrary to common misconceptions, a trust operates as a contractual entity, granting it the ability to be lawfully represented by an authorized agent, including an attorney-in-fact. This article explores the legal framework affirming this right, highlights key statutory provisions, and provides strategies for enforcing it against courts and financial institutions that unlawfully challenge or deny such authority.
PHH Mortgage Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. is a glaring example of procedural misconduct, constitutional violations, and a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice. The Plaintiffs have conditionally accepted PHH Mortgage’s non-compliant filing, thereby tendering a binding counteroffer that PHH must now rebut. PHH’s continued silence and failure to rebut the conditional acceptance further compounds their non-performance and dishonor. Additionally, the Defendants’ filing, prepared by Neil J. Cooper of HOUSER LLP, violates multiple-defendant court rules, misrepresents the law, displays incompetence and a war against the Constitution, and constitutes blatant obstruction of justice.
Further exacerbating this obstruction, critical documents remain missing from the court docket and record, preventing a full and fair adjudication of the Plaintiffs’ claims. This deliberate suppression of filings by the court and Defendants undermines due process, conceals key evidence, and constitutes judicial misconduct. The failure to properly record and acknowledge Plaintiffs’ filings further demonstrates systematic efforts to manipulate the proceedings in PHH Mortgage’s favor, reinforcing the need for immediate judicial correction, sanctions, and enforcement of Plaintiffs’ default judgment demands.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has concluded that restrictions on the removal of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) are unconstitutional, referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris notified Senate President Pro Tempore Charles Grassley that the DOJ will no longer defend these protections in court. DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle emphasized that unelected ALJs have wielded excessive authority without accountability for too long and must be answerable to the President and the American people.
The United States District Court, Central District of California (Riverside), stands accused of obstructing justice, tampering with records, and violating due process by unlawfully refusing to file and docket legitimate pleadings. Plaintiffs KEVIN WALKER ESTATE, et al., hav presented irrefutable evidence of judicial misconduct, calling for criminal prosecution, sanctions, and immediate enforcement. Despite proof of receipt, court officials have concealed filings, manipulated records, and obstructed legal proceedings, in direct violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512, 1519, and 2071. With Pam Bondi CC’d on the correspondence, high-level authorities have been alerted to this grave constitutional violation that threatens judicial integrity and fundamental rights.
A verified complaint submitted to the court functions not only as a legal pleading but also as a negotiable debt instrument and a special deposit, as established under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2041, 2042, and 2045. Additionally, it is classified as a financial asset governed by 12 U.S.C. § 1813(l)(1), 31 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(62), and 31 U.S.C. § 3302. Courts operate as depository institutions, responsible for receiving, managing, and investing funds, with all case-related deposits held in trust by the U.S. Treasury. Furthermore, under 26 U.S.C. §§ 1271-1275, a verified complaint qualifies as an Original Issue Discount (OID) security, mandating proper financial reporting. Every legal case is effectively a commercial transaction, in which funds, securities, and judgments are recorded and managed within the court’s custodial accounts. Understanding a verified complaint as a financial obligation allows for proper accounting and the reclamation of funds through the use of IRS Forms 1099-A and 1099-OID, thereby ensuring transparency and compliance with federal financial regulations.
The concept of citizenship in the United States is more complex than commonly understood. Legal precedents and statutory definitions reveal a critical distinction between a "state Citizen" (also referred to as a "national") and a "citizen of the United States." This article explores this distinction, highlighting key legal authorities, statutory provisions, and judicial opinions to clarify the implications for individuals seeking to understand their legal status and rights
Article III courts, established under the U.S. Constitution, are essential for protecting rights in civil contract disputes involving unrebutted affidavits. They uphold due process guaranteed by the Constitution, recognize uncontested evidence, and offer both legal and equitable remedies. With exclusive equity jurisdiction, these courts can enforce obligations, issue injunctions, and affirm binding agreements, ensuring justice and constitutional compliance
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.
In legal proceedings, some parties may resort to deceptive tactics to avoid addressing the actual issues at hand. These tactics include dismissing valid arguments with vague, unsupported claims like “baseless” or “meritless” and avoiding engagement with evidence or legal references. Instead of addressing the facts, the opposing side might use emotional language, misrepresent your position, or shift the burden of proof onto you. These strategies are often employed to distract from the lack of a solid defense or to obscure the weakness of their own case. Recognizing these behaviors can help you stay focused on the core legal issues and ensure that the dispute is resolved based on merit.