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” typically does not fully comprehend, Article 1, Section 10, of the U.S. Constitution.
A “Sovereign Citizen” typically does not fully comprehend, the “1940 Buck Act” and “Federal Areas.”
A “Sovereign Citizen” typically is dual-minded in their approach to public and private law and does not proceed sui juris, In Propria Persona, or by Special Limited Appearance.
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.
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) provides a structured legal framework for negotiable instruments, obligations, and their discharge. Among its provisions, sections like UCC §§ 3-303, 3-604, 3-104, 3-409, 2-206, and 1-103 reveal a clear foundation for the Accepted for Value (A4V) process. This process allows obligations such as mortgages, loans, or other debts to be addressed through lawful mechanisms of discharge, settlement, or setoff.
Steven MacArthur Brooks’ estate has filed a $2.975 billion lawsuit against San Diego County Credit Union, asserting a binding contract and seeking summary judgment. The lawsuit emphasizes the plaintiffs’ status as secured creditors under UCC provisions, supported by unrebutted affidavits and evidence of contractual acceptance. The case centers on a contract and security agreement, with claims of non-response from defendants validating the demand for summary judgment as a matter of law.
