Attorney at Law vs an Attorney in Fact Have You Become 'a ward of the court' ?

“Attorney at Law” vs an “Attorney in Fact”: Have You Become ‘a ward of the court’ ?

In legal practice, the roles of an “Attorney at Law” (commonly referred to as a “Lawyer“) and an “Attorney in Fact” are distinct and carry different responsibilities and powers. This distinction is crucial when considering legal representation, personal agency, and the management of one’s affairs, especially in terms of maintaining personal sovereignty.

Attorney at Law”: Licensed Legal Professional:

An “Attorney at Law” or “Lawyer” is a person who has met the legal qualifications to practice law. This typically involves completing law school, passing the bar exam, and being admitted to the bar association of a specific jurisdiction, which governs their professional conduct. “Attorneys at Law” are authorized to:

  1. Represent clients in legal matters, including court proceedings
  2. Draft legal documents such as contracts, wills, and litigation papers
  3. Provide “legal” advice and counsel to clients
  4. Negotiate “legal” agreements on behalf of their clients

However, it’s important to note that “Lawyers” have a duty not just to their clients but also to the court. In fact, according to 4 ATTORNEY & CLIENT 7 C.J.S. and 2-3 ATTORNEY & CLIENT 7 C.J.S., a client represented by an “Attorney at Law” is considered a “ward of the court.” This means the “attorney” is obligated to place the interests of the court first, above even the interests of the client. The client is thus in a diminished position of authority over their own case once representation is retained.

Furthermore, becoming a ward of the court grants the respective court or administrative tribunal jurisdiction over the individual. In this scenario, the living breathing man or woman/private citizen/national loses certain rights by way of contract—the retained “attorney” acts as the “handler” ushering the individual into the system, making them subject to colorable laws and potential deprivation under the color of law. They exchange their rights as a “private citizen/Sovereign” for benefits, as  a ward of the court,” by way their own willful contract with the “Attorney at Law” aka “Lawyer,” whom essentially is a double agent, owing their loyalty to the court.

Attorney in Fact: Appointed Representative:

An Attorney in Fact, on the other hand, is not necessarily a “Lawyer.” This role is typically created through a legal document such as a Power of Attorney, an Affidavit, or a Contract Security Agreement, An Attorney in Fact is someone who is empowered to act on behalf of another individual (the “Principal”) in specific matters, which can range from financial management to business transactions, or other delegated responsibilities.

The significant aspect here is that anyone can be appointed as an Attorney in Fact—you don’t need to choose a licensed “Lawyer.” The powers of an Attorney in Fact are defined and limited by the scope of the legal document appointing them. They cannot represent the principal in court unless specific provisions allow them to do so.

 

Appointment of Attorney in Fact by Affidavit or Contract Security Agreement:

Beyond the traditional Power of Attorney, an Attorney in Fact can also be appointed via an Affidavit or a Contract Security Agreement**. This approach offers flexibility in delegating authority and can be particularly useful in more complex legal and financial scenarios. Here’s how the process works:

1. Appointment by Affidavit: A person (the principal) can issue an affidavit explicitly appointing someone as their Attorney in Fact. This sworn document gives the appointee the authority to act on the principal’s behalf in accordance with the scope outlined in the affidavit.

2. Appointment by Contract Security Agreement: In some cases, a Contract Security Agreement may be used to formalize the appointment of an Attorney in Fact. This contractual arrangement sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the principal and the appointee, ensuring that the agent’s powers are clearly defined and agreed upon.

In both cases, the appointed Attorney in Fact takes on the duties specified in the document but cannot act as a “Lawyer” or “Attorney at Law” unless otherwise permitted by statute or court order.

 

The Importance of Being Your Own Attorney in Fact:

Every private citizen is inherently expected to act as their own Attorney in Fact when handling their personal affairs. This principle emphasizes personal sovereignty—retaining control over one’s decisions, finances, and legal rights. Acting as your own Attorney in Fact ensures that you maintain full agency over your legal and financial decisions.

However, when you appoint another person as your Attorney in Fact, or when you retain a “Lawyer” to represent you, you are effectively delegating your power and authority to someone else. This transfer of power has significant consequences in the legal realm, particularly when retaining an “Attorney at Law.”

 

Consequences of Retaining a “Lawyer”: Becoming a Ward of the Court:

When an individual retains an “Attorney at Law,” they surrender a degree of control over their legal affairs. Under § 4 ATTORNEY & CLIENT 7 C.J.S. and §§ 2-3 ATTORNEY & CLIENT 7 C.J.S., the court views a represented client as a “ward of the court.” This means the client is no longer fully responsible for their own legal matters—their “attorney” assumes the role of guardian within the context of the legal system.

The implications are as follows:

Surrender of Control: By hiring a “Lawyer,” the client effectively relinquishes their direct decision-making authority, trusting their “attorney” to act on their behalf.
Court Supervision: Once an “Attorney at Law” is retained, the client is subject to the court’s authority, with the “attorney” primarily serving the court’s interests, which may not always align with the client’s desires.
Loss of Personal Sovereignty: While many view hiring an “Attorney at Law” as an essential part of legal proceedings, it’s important to recognize that doing so results in the client becoming a “ward of the court,” meaning they are no longer considered fully capable of managing their own legal matters.

Furthermore, by becoming a ward of the court,” individuals effectively grant jurisdiction to the respective court/administrative tribunal, which results in the loss of rights through the contractual relationship with their retained “attorney” or “handler.” This situation can usher individuals into the legal system, rendering them subject to its colorable laws and potential deprivation under the “color of law.”

 

3. What is a ward of the court?

“Wards of court. Infants and persons of unsound mind placed by the court under the care of a guardian. Davis Committee v. Loney, 290 Ky. 644, 162 S.W. 2d. 189, 190. Their rights must e guarded jealously. Montgomery v. Erie R. Co., C.C.A.N.J., 97 F, 2d 289, 292. See Guardianship”

 

4. What is “In Propria Persona

particularly “…because if pleaded by an attorney…”

In propria persona /in pröwpry! persówn!/. In one’s own proper person. It was formerly a rule in pleading that pleas to the jurisdiction of the court must be plead in propria persona, because if pleaded by attorney they admit the jurisdiction, as an attorney is an officer of the court, and he is presumed to plead after having obtained leave, which admits the jurisdiction. See Pro se.

ATTORNEY & CLIENT Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.) VOLUME 7 SECTION 4

 

Conclusion: Maintaining Personal Sovereignty:

Understanding the difference between an “Attorney at Law” and an Attorney in Fact is vital for maintaining personal control over your affairs. By acting as your own Attorney in Fact, or appointing a trusted individual through an affidavit or Contract Security Agreement, you preserve your right to make decisions on your own behalf. However, retaining a “Lawyer” means delegating significant power and potentially becoming a “ward of the court,” subject to the judicial system’s supervision; “subject to the jurisdiction of…”

For those who value personal sovereignty and control, it is important to carefully consider how you approach legal representation and the appointment of others to act on your behalf. Whether acting independently as your own Attorney in Fact or appointing another, this decision holds significant weight in how your legal and financial matters are managed.

Leave your vote

98674 points
More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

Fraud, Color of Law, and RICO Violations by Attorney Monika Vermani (Bar #355080) Exposed in Riverside County, California

Fraud, Color of Law, and RICO Violations by Attorney Monika Vermani (Bar #355080) Exposed in Riverside County, California

Attorney Monika Vermani (CA Bar #355080) has been formally named in a high-level commercial fraud and racketeering operation involving Riverside County’s unlawful prosecution of a secured private trust estate. Verified affidavits, unrebutted notices, and perfected UCC filings establish that Vermani is proceeding without lawful jurisdiction, operating under color of law, and aiding in the unauthorized securitization and monetization of private estate assets. The record demands $100 million in damages, immediate dismissal with prejudice, and criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 1961–1968 (RICO). This case exposes a systemic pattern of commercial fraud, identity theft, and administrative conspiracy masquerading as routine judicial process.

Attorney Monika Vermani (CA Bar #355080) has been formally named in a high-level commercial fraud and racketeering operation involving Riverside County’s unlawful prosecution of a secured private trust estate. Verified affidavits, unrebutted notices, and perfected UCC filings establish that Vermani is proceeding without lawful jurisdiction, operating under color of law, and aiding in the unauthorized securitization and monetization of private estate assets. The record demands $100 million in damages, immediate dismissal with prejudice, and criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 1961–1968 (RICO). This case exposes a systemic pattern of commercial fraud, identity theft, and administrative conspiracy masquerading as routine judicial process.

252Is a U.S. Citizen an Authorized Representative of the United States?

Is a U.S. Citizen an Authorized Representative of the United States?

A U.S. citizen does not possess agency on behalf of the United States government unless expressly appointed by statute, contract, or lawful delegation. Mere citizenship does not establish authority to act for or represent the federal government in any legal or commercial capacity. In reality, the U.S. citizen is the governed and regulated party—operating under federal jurisdiction, not within it. Only properly delegated agents—such as public officers, attorneys, or fiduciaries acting under written authority—may speak or act on behalf of the United States. Recognizing this separation is essential in all matters involving legal standing, jurisdiction, and commercial equity.

2How to Convene a 12 Panel Grand Jury Citizen Authority vs. State Monopoly

How to Convene a 12-Panel Grand Jury: Citizen Authority vs. State Monopoly

Learn how private citizens can lawfully initiate grand jury investigations through both statutory and common law means. This article explains the difference between court-convened grand juries and citizen-led panels formed under First Amendment and natural law authority. From submitting affidavits to the U.S. Attorney under 18 U.S.C. § 3332(a), to organizing lawful assemblies that issue true bills, the guide walks through each step. It empowers those facing systemic fraud, corruption, or due process violations with a lawful path to remedy. Grand juries are not just for prosecutors—they are a tool for the people.

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 !!