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.
The term “Sovereign Citizen” is a weaponized slur and a derogatory, defamatory, and slanderous term used by incompetents, traitors, and terrorists, to describe a living man or woman whom comprehends that everything is commercial in nature, as evidenced by CFR § 27.11 and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, and claims to be a Sovereign however, they do not completely understand public and private law and possess the intelligence of that of a Sovereign.
The term “Sovereign Citizen” originated from patriots and Americans who reserve their rights, claim their estate and exemption from the United States, expatriate from the commercial democracy and remain in the private, de jure republic however, it has since been weaponized and has evolved into term used as propaganda by incompetents, traitors, and terrorists.
In General– typically/usually:
A “Sovereign Citizen” typically makes incorrect claims like stating they are an “American State National,” or “Sovereign Citizen,” or “State National,” instead of properly and correctly referring to themselves as a “national,” “non-citizen national,” “state Citizen,” “private citizen,” and/or “Sovereign.”
A “Sovereign Citizen” typically does not fully comprehend, House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933 public law 73-10.
A “Sovereign Citizen” typically does not fully comprehend, Gold Reserve Act of 1934, Public Law 73-87, Title III, Section 3.
A “Sovereign Citizen” typically does not fully comprehend, House Joint Resolution 348 Public Resolution, Number 63.
A “Sovereign Citizen” typicallymakes incorrect statements and references to “Citizenship.”
A “Sovereign Citizen” typically is not capable of creating their own unsworn declarations “without the United States” in accordance with, 28 U.S. Code § 1746.
A “Sovereign Citizen” typically does not fully comprehend jurisdiction and how it can be obtained.
A “Sovereign Citizen” typically does not fully comprehend how to abate a matter.
A “Sovereign Citizen” typically does not reserve their rights in accordance with U.C.C. § 1-308 (formerly § 1-207).
A “Sovereign Citizen” typically is not capable of creating and completing a conditional acceptance on their own.
A “Sovereign Citizen” typically is not capable of completing an administrative procedure.
A “Sovereign Citizen” typically is not capable of assessing their own taxes and requires and relies significant assistance of a “Attorney In Fact.”
A “Sovereign Citizen” typically does not fully comprehend “minimum contacts” and/or “Invisible contracts.”
A “Sovereign Citizen” typically claims to be a Sovereign but does not have their own private U.C.C. contract trust established to handle and maintain their own private banking ledger.
A “Sovereign Citizen” typically does not fully comprehend contract law, trust law, tax law, common law, Constitutional law, commerce, and banking.
In recent legal proceedings, Judge Altman’s handling of critical commercial and financial laws has raised serious concerns. His dismissal of key sections of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and essential federal statutes, such as House Joint Resolution 192 and 18 U.S.C. § 8, undermines the integrity of the U.S. legal system. These laws are foundational to understanding the complex interplay of U.S. monetary policy, debtdischarge, and commercial transactions. In this article, we will dissect the significant legal missteps in Judge Altman’s ruling, exploring the implications for commercial law, government debt obligations, and the broader judicial system.
Bare criminal statutes define unlawful behaviors and prescribe penalties such as fines or imprisonment but do not grant individuals the right to file lawsuits. These statutes are enforced exclusively by government authorities. In contrast, a private right of action allows individuals to file lawsuits for civil remedies, either explicitly or implied by courts. While criminal statutes like mail fraud or conspiracy against rights may not provide private remedies, other laws such as RICO or § 1983 may allow victims to seek civil redress. The distinction between criminal enforcement and civil remedies underscores the importance of understanding statutory rights for successful legal claims.
Riverside County Sheriff deputies Gregory D. Eastwood and Robert C. V. Bowman stalked national and private attorney-in-fact Kevin L. Walker through his neighborhood around the corner from his home, then arrested him on a bogus warrant and towed his Lamborghini. There is now an administrative process taking place and a pending One Trillion Dollar ($1,000,000,000,000.00) Federal conspiracy, fraud, forced peonage, and racketeering lawsuit against the deputies and the Riverside County Sheriff Department.
