The term "Sovereign Citizen" is a derogatory and weaponized label and propaganda used 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. While these individuals may attempt to reserve their rights and operate independently, they often misuse legal terminology and fail to create unsworn declarations compliant with 28 U.S. Code § 1746. They misunderstand critical concepts like jurisdiction, contract law, and administrative procedures, and they incorrectly mix public and private law, leaving them unable to effectively assert and protect their rights under UCC § 1-308.
House Joint Resolution 192 of 1933 Public Law 73-10 and the Removal of Gold from America: a long time ago, back in 1933, the government had a big money problem. They couldn’t pay their bills, so they declared bankruptcy. To fix things, they created new rules. One of these was called Executive Order 6102, which made “U.S. citizens” turn in their gold coins and bars. In exchange, they received paper money called Federal Reserve Notes. But here’s the key part: this rule only applied to “U.S. citizens,” not to private citizens who knew they were different from that legal status.
Most people didn’t know the difference between the public and private sides of the law, so they unknowingly volunteered to give up their gold. By not understanding the difference, they became their ens legis, also known as their “straw man” “U.S. citizen,” or “trust,” or “bank,” or “corporation,” or “individual.” It is the fake version of themselves whether they consciously know it or know. The “U.S. citizen” is a “legal person” and a fiction—an entity. By volunteering to turn in their gold, these people also agreed to use Federal Reserve Notes instead of “lawful money,” which is gold and silver-backed. They entered into a contract without even realizing it, and contract is law and enforceable.
Contracts, legally binding agreements between parties, are often formed through mutual consent, typically involving an offer and acceptance. Silence, known as tacit agreement, acquiescence, or tacit procuration, can also legally bind parties to contract terms. This concept becomes vital when challenging purported fraudulent loans like mortgages. Through the strategic use of commercial affidavits, one can utilize contract law principles such as the mailbox rule, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and relevant statutes to enforce or modify contract terms. However, it is equally important to recognize that using Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) for debt payment may be interpreted as tacit acceptance of the contract’s terms, potentially resulting in the abandonment of one’s assets and exemptions. This action may further expose the purported borrower to legal risks under federal law.
Under Title 12 U.S.C. § 1813(l)(1), when the purported borrower deposits or surrenders a promissory note, it is considered a cash item. In this context, a financial institution, such as Chase or other entities, are legally obligated to treat the note as a cash equivalent and issue a cash receipt acknowledging the deposit of this asset.
A bill of exchange can function as "legal tender" or "tender of payment," but its status depends on acceptance and context but regardless, if tendered correctly, it does discharge the debt and respective amount tendered. It is a written instrument where one party (the drawer) orders another (the drawee) to pay a specific amount to a third party (the payee). While bills of exchange can be negotiable, they can also be non-negotiable, meaning they don’t always transfer ownership upon indorsement.
a trustee sale cannot proceed if the property is held in a private trust and the trustee is not involved. Any such sale would lack legal authority and be invalid and equate to fraud. The fraud being committed carries stipulations of 30-50+ years of imprisonment and due a corrupt system Americans are being deprived of their rights. The actions of AFFINIA DEFAULT Services, WELLS FARGO, SIERRA PACIFIC MORTGAGE, and RECON DEFAULT Services go beyond mere procedural errors—they represent a coordinated effort of racketeering, organized crime, and bank fraud. These entities are falsely asserting standing to conduct trustee sales under false pretenses and engaging in slander of title and color of title to unlawfully transfer ownership. Their deliberate misrepresentation of their authority is not only fraudulent but also constitutes treasonous activity, as it undermines the very legal framework that protects property rights and ownership.
TACIT HYPOTHECATION. In the civil law, a species of lien or mortgage which is created by operation of law […]
Did the fraudulent Car Dealership, Mortgage Company, or Utility Company tell you? You can tender payment via a bill of exchange, dollars/FRNs/portable bonds, checks and/or money orders (pubic and private), drafts, orders, and more!
anyone can file a UCC-1 against anyone else. To protect both secured creditors and debtors, Article 9 has strict requirements that must be met for a filed UCC-1 to be effective. One of those requirements is that the financing statement must be authorized by the debtor. Even if that authorization is way of a non-response to an affidavit and/or notice, silent acquiescence, tacit agreement, and/or tacit procuration.
Private Citizen – is someone who is private and not governed by any de facto corporation like the U.S. […]
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees crucial rights to individuals accused of crimes, including the right […]
In the realm of financial obligations, there is a fundamental principle that separates the tangible from the intangible, the government-created […]