Judge Wesley Hsu’s and/or Magistrate Maria Audero’s Court took a significant step toward restoring judicial integrity by docketing and honorably backdating Kevin: Realworldfare’s VERIFIED Affidavit asserting State Citizenship and constitutional standing in case 5:25-cv-00646-WLH-MAA. This filing directly rebuts prior false presumptions labeling him a U.S. citizen or ward of the State. In contrast to prior judicial misconduct by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, who obstructed identical filings, Hsu and Audero’s actions demonstrate procedural fidelity and impartiality. Their conduct marks a hopeful departure from the systemic corruption plaguing courts in Riverside County. The case highlights growing public scrutiny and demand for lawful adjudication based on record, not presumption.
This article exposes a troubling pattern of judicial misconduct in California’s federal courts, where verified affidavits asserting State Citizenship and national status have been received but concealed from the official record. Specifically, it highlights the nondocketing of a key affidavit in Kevin: Walker v. Bianco et al. before Judge Wesley Hsu, while extending temporary benefit of the doubt due to possible administrative backlog. The article also touches on and reconfirms how Judge Jesus G. Bernal falsely claimed non-response in a related case to justify an unlawful dismissal, now under appeal. These actions collectively suggest systemic obstruction, due process violations, and potential criminal liability under multiple federal statutes.
This article explores the crucial legal distinctions between a State Citizen and a U.S. citizen (14th Amendment subject) by analyzing the Supreme Court case Wong Kim Ark v. United States and the jurisdictional implications of the Buck Act of 1940. It reveals how federal jurisdiction is not based on geography, but on consent and contractual participation in federal benefit programs. Through detailed legal reasoning, it explains how one can owe allegiance to the United States as a constitutional Republic without being subject to its corporate statutory codes. The piece provides actionable remedies for rebutting federal presumptions and restoring lawful State Citizenship.
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
"Pro Se" denotes voluntarily representing oneself within the court’s jurisdiction, thereby consenting to its authority and procedures. In contrast, "Pro Per" allows individuals to assert their personal status and directly challenge the court’s jurisdiction, avoiding representation as a legal fiction. This distinction underscores the significance of an Affidavit of Power of Attorney In Fact, which empowers an Attorney In Fact to represent a trust without requiring a licensed attorney in the public jurisdiction. Understanding these legal roles is crucial in navigating court standing and asserting constitutional and contractual rights effectively.
Understanding the distinction between a demand and a motion is essential in legal and commercial matters, as each serves a different purpose and reflects the position of the party making the submission. While both terms involve asserting rights or seeking outcomes, the processes, implications, and advantages of each vary significantly. This article explores these differences in depth, outlining their roles, functions, and strategic applications.
The Fourteenth Amendment created and clarified the concept of U.S. citizenship. Before the amendment, it was widely believed and accepted […]
The term "Sovereign Citizen" is a derogatory and weaponized label, used as propaganda to describe men or women who claim sovereignty but lack a full understanding of the legal distinctions between public and private law. As outlined in CFR § 27.11 and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, the commercial nature of all interactions is evident, yet these individuals struggle to navigate this framework correctly. They attempt to reserve their rights and operate independently but misuse terminology, failing to create unsworn declarations that comply with 28 U.S. Code § 1746. They also misunderstand critical concepts like jurisdiction, contract law, and administrative procedures. They often mix public and private law, leaving them unable to effectively assert and protect their rights as intended under UCC § 1-308. Additionally, they overlook the significance of Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution, which highlights the restrictions placed on states concerning legal tender, further emphasizing the complexities they misunderstand.