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.
When a court acts without lawful jurisdiction—whether through improper removal, lack of subject matter or personal authority, or constitutional violations—its orders are void ab initio and carry no legal force. This article explains how judges who continue to issue rulings after losing jurisdiction are not merely mistaken—they are acting under color of law and are subject to direct civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Backed by black-letter case law and statutory authority, this piece dismantles the myth of absolute judicial immunity and affirms a fundamental truth in law: jurisdiction is everything. When it’s gone, so is the court’s power to act.
In a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs Kevin: Realworldfare and Corey: Walker expose Riverside Court Commissioner Tamara L. Wagner’s unlawful railroading under color of law and total absence of jurisdiction. Despite a pending Quiet Title Action and perfected federal removal, Wagner issued void orders to dispossess the Walker Estate—yet the Estate remains lawfully and firmly in possession. Now under Article III jurisdiction, Judge Kenly Kiya Kato presides over the live case, which alleges constitutional violations, commercial fraud, and abuse of process. This is a high-stakes confrontation between equity and overreach—where immunity fails and facts prevail.
Judges are not immune when they operate outside lawful jurisdiction, conspire under color of law, or engage in commercial enforcement without consent. Under the Clearfield Doctrine, they become corporate actors subject to liability like any private party. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 enables civil rights lawsuits against them individually, while 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–242 provides for criminal penalties for conspiracy and deprivation of rights. Through tort law, UCC, and case law like Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1980), and Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984), judges can face personal and injunctive accountability.
