$900 Billion Lawsuit Pending due to Federal Crimes Committed by CHP Officers “J. J. Gaffney” and “SMALE” and Riverside Sheriff Deputy “Grewel”

This article also emphasizes that if this matter is not promptly settled, it will result in a $900,000,000,000.00 USD (billion) lawsuit filed for summary judgment as a matter of law, invoking contract law, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and legal maxims, including silent acquiescence, tacit agreement, tacit procuration, and binding contracts.

What Is a Self-Executing Contract and Security Agreement?

A self-executing contract is a legally binding agreement that automatically takes effect once specific conditions are met, without requiring further action or consent from either party. In the context of sovereignty, these agreements often function as security agreements under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), creating enforceable liens against the party deemed to be the debtor.

A key principle supporting the self-executing nature of these contracts is the Mailbox Rule, established in Adams v. Lindsell (1818). According to this rule, acceptance of an offer is effective once it is properly addressed, stamped, and placed in the mail. This ensures that agreements sent via mail are binding upon dispatch, establishing enforceable obligations without further actions by the sender.

Conditional Acceptance and the Preservation of Rights

At the heart of ™KEVIN WALKER© ESTATE, ™KEVIN LEWIS WALKER©, ™KEVIN WALKER© IRR TRUST’s self-executing contract is the doctrine of conditional acceptance. This legal approach allows individuals to conditionally agree to terms while requiring the other party to prove specific claims or jurisdictional authority. The contract explicitly reserves the rights of Kevin Walker under UCC § 1-308, ensuring that no constitutional or common-law protections are waived.

Walker’s contract reflects a core principle: no person can be compelled to perform under a contract they did not knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily enter into. Contracts formed under duress, coercion, or without full disclosure are void under both common law and UCC principles.

DOWNLOAD 107 page document

The Right to Travel: A Fundamental Freedom

A central assertion in Kevin Walker’s case is that the use of a private automobile for personal travel is a natural, unalienable right—not a privilege subject to statutory regulation. Walker’s stance is supported by several legal precedents:

Use defines classification:

1. 1. It is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit.” Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251; Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited; Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592; Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313
   2. The California Motor Vehicle Code, section 260: Private cars/vans etc. not in commerce / for profit, are immune to registration fees: 
      1. (a) A “commercial vehicle” is a vehicle of a type REQUIRED to be REGISTERED under this code”.  
      2. (b) “Passenger vehicles which are not used for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation or profit, and housecars, are not commercial vehicles”. 
      3. (c) “a vanpool vehicle is not a commercial vehicle.”
   3. 18 U.S. Code § 31 – Definition, expressly stipulates, ”The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo”.
   4. A vehicle not used for commercial activity is a “consumer goods”, …it is NOT a type of vehicle required to be registered and “use tax” paid of which the tab is evidence of receipt of the tax.” Bank of Boston vs Jones, 4 UCC Rep. Serv. 1021, 236 A2d 484, UCC PP 9-109.14.
   5. “ The ‘privilege’ of using the streets and highways by the operation thereon of motor carriers for hire can be acquired only by permission or license from the state or its political subdivision. “—Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed, page 830.
   6. “It is held that a tax upon common carriers by motor vehicles is based upon a reasonable classification, and does not involve any unconstitutional discrimination, although it does not apply to private vehicles, or those used by the owner in his own business, and not for hire.” Desser v. Wichita, (1915) 96 Kan. 820; Iowa Motor Vehicle Asso. v. Railroad Comrs., 75 A.L.R. 22. 
   7. “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled.” Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20. 
   8. In view of this rule a statutory provision that the supervising officials “may” exempt such persons when the transportation is not on a commercial basis means that they “must” exempt them.” State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; 60 C.J.S. section 94 page 581.
   9. “The use to which an item is put, rather than its physical characteristics, determine whether it should be classified as “consumer goods” under UCC 9- 109(1) or “equipment” under UCC 9-109(2).” Grimes v Massey Ferguson, Inc., 23 UCC Rep Serv 655; 355 So.2d 338 (Ala., 1978). 
   10. “Under UCC 9-109 there is a real distinction between goods purchased for personal use and those purchased for business use. The two are mutually exclusive and the principal use to which the property is put should be considered as determinative.” James Talcott, Inc. v Gee, 5 UCC Rep Serv 1028; 266 Cal.App.2d 384, 72 Cal.Rptr. 168 (1968). 
   11. “The classification of goods in UCC 9-109 are mutually exclusive.” McFadden v Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 8 UCC Rep Serv 766; 260 Md 601, 273 A.2d 198 (1971).
   12. “The classification of “goods” under [UCC] 9-109 is a question of fact.” Morgan County Feeders, Inc. v McCormick, 18 UCC Rep Serv 2d 632; 836 P.2d 1051 (Colo. App., 1992). 
   13. “The definition of “goods” includes an automobile.” Henson v Government Employees Finance & Industrial Loan Corp., 15 UCC Rep Serv 1137; 257 Ark 273, 516 S.W.2d 1 (1974).

The RIGHT to Travel is not a Privilege:

1. 1. 1. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring, licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.” Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. 
      2. The fundamental Right to travel is NOT a Privilege, it’s a gift granted by your Creator and restated by our founding fathers as Unalienable and cannot be taken by any Man / Government made Law or color of law known as a private “Code” (secret) or a “Statute.”
      3. “Traveling is passing from place to place–act of performing journey; and traveler is person who travels.” In Re Archy (1858), 9 C. 47. 
      4. “Right of transit through each state, with every species of property known to constitution of United States, and recognized by that paramount law, is secured by that instrument to each citizen, and does not depend upon uncertain and changeable ground of mere comity.” In Re Archy (1858), 9 C. 47.  
      5. Freedom to travel is, indeed, an important aspect of the citizen’s “liberty”. We are first concerned with the extent, if any, to which Congress has authorized its curtailment. (Road) Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 127.
      6. The right to travel is a part of the “liberty” of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the solicitor general. In Anglo Saxon law that right was emerging at least as early as Magna Carta. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
      7. “Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with public interest and convenience. Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22, 206.
      8. “… It is now universally recognized that the state does possess such power [to impose such burdens and limitations upon private carriers when using the public highways for the transaction of their business] with respect to common carriers using the public highways for the transaction of their business in the transportation of persons or property for hire. That rule is stated as follows by the supreme court of the United States: ‘A citizen may have, under the fourteenth amendment, the right to travel and transport his property upon them (the public highways) by auto vehicle, but he has no right to make the highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for hire. Such use is a privilege which may be granted or withheld by the state in its discretion, without violating either the due process clause or the equal protection clause.’ (Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U. S. 307 [38 A. L. R. 286, 69 L. Ed. 623, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 324]. 
      9. “The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business differs radically an obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a stage coach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of a citizen, a right common to all; while the latter is special, unusual and extraordinary. As to the former, the extent of legislative power is that of regulation; but as to the latter its power is broader; the right may be wholly denied, or it may be permitted to some and denied to others, because of its extraordinary nature. This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities.”
      10. “ Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his/her property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience.” [“regulated” means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs etc.]—Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22.
      11. ”The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”—Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.
      12. ”There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” —Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945
      13. The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus.”— State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.
      14. ”The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his/her property thereon either by carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city [or State] may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he/she has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” —Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
      15. “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.”— Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
      16. “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”—Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22;Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.
      17. “The right to b is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta.” — Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958).
      18. ”The state cannot diminish Rights of the people.” —Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516.
      19. “Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion — to go where and when one pleases — only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.” —II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.
      20. Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” —Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.
      21. ”The state cannot diminish Rights of the people.” —Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516.

By using a private automobile marked with a “PRIVATE” plate, Kevin Walker distinguishes his personal mode of travel from commercial vehicles, which are subject to registration and licensing requirements under statutory law.

Unlawful Detention and Enforcement Abuse

On December 6, 2024, ™KEVIN WALKER© ESTATE, ™KEVIN LEWIS WALKER©, ™KEVIN WALKER© IRR TRUST, represented by Kevin Walker, was unlawfully detained by law enforcement officers while traveling privately in his automobile. Despite presenting a “PRIVATE” plate and legal documentation asserting his status as a non-citizen national, officers ignored constitutional and statutory protections, escalating the encounter into a violation of rights under the color of law.

Key violations in this case include:

1. Coerced Contracts: Kevin Walker was coerced into signing a citation under threat, duress, and coercion, rendering the citation void under common law principles.
2. Jurisdictional Overreach: Law enforcement officers failed to establish jurisdiction over a private automobile that was not engaged in commerce, contrary to California Vehicle Code § 260 and 18 U.S.C. § 31(6).
3. Fraudulent Debt Instruments: The officers allegedly created a fraudulent debt instrument using falsified information, constituting identity theft and extortion.

link: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=260

link: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-registration/registration-fees/vehicle-definitions/

Demand for Proof and Accountability

The self-executing contract of ™KEVIN WALKER© ESTATE, ™KEVIN LEWIS WALKER©, ™KEVIN WALKER© IRR TRUST includes a series of demands for proof, requiring the respondents to substantiate their claims of jurisdiction, authority, and lawful consideration. These demands reflect a broader strategy to hold public officials accountable for overreach and ensure that constitutional rights are respected.

By invoking legal precedents such as United States v. Kis (1981), Walker asserts that the burden of proof lies with the respondents to demonstrate their claims of authority. Failure to provide such proof invalidates any alleged obligations or penalties imposed.

The $900 Billion Lawsuit

If this matter is not promptly settled, a $900 billion lawsuit will be filed, invoking summary judgment as a matter of law. This lawsuit is based on:

• Contract Law: Silent acquiescence and tacit agreement will establish a binding contract.
• Uniform Commercial Code: UCC principles, especially UCC §§ 1-308 and 9-102, ensure the enforceability of the self-executing contract and security agreement.
• Legal Maxims: “He who does not deny, admits,” and “Silence is consent,” as well as tacit procuration, solidify the legal standing of the claim.
• Binding Contracts: The unchallenged nature of Kevin Walker’s contract further solidifies the enforceability of the agreement.

Implications for Individual Sovereignty

Kevin Walker’s case highlights the importance of understanding and asserting one’s rights within a legal system increasingly reliant on statutory codes and administrative procedures. Self-executing contracts and security agreements offer a powerful mechanism for preserving individual sovereignty while challenging unlawful encroachments.

These instruments:

1. Protect Constitutional Rights: By explicitly reserving rights under UCC § 1-308, individuals can avoid unintended waivers of constitutional protections.
2. Shift the Burden of Proof: Conditional acceptance places the responsibility on the other party to substantiate claims of authority, jurisdiction, and lawful consideration.
3. Expose Fraudulent Practices: Documenting coercion, duress, and lack of consent creates a foundation for challenging fraudulent practices and seeking legal remedies.

Conclusion

The case of ™KEVIN WALKER© ESTATE, ™KEVIN LEWIS WALKER©, ™KEVIN WALKER© IRR TRUST demonstrates the vital role that self-executing contracts and security agreements play in defending individual rights, particularly the right to travel. By leveraging principles of common law, UCC provisions, and constitutional protections, Walker’s approach provides a blueprint for others seeking to assert their rights against unlawful actions.

As this matter moves forward, the $900 billion lawsuit underscores the importance of legal principles such as silent acquiescence, tacit agreement, and tacit procuration in shaping the outcome of this case. The defense of sovereignty and constitutional rights is not only a personal battle for Kevin Walker but a broader statement of resistance against unlawful state overreach and administrative violations.