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.
A federal RICO action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California unveils a calculated scheme orchestrated by attorneys Barry Lee O’Connor and John Bailey, in concert with MARINAJ PROPERTIES and the Doumit family. The Verified Complaint lays out a detailed pattern of racketeering involving simulated legal proceedings, fraudulent conveyance, and theft of trust assets through a void and defective Trustee’s Deed. Despite perfected title claims and unrebutted affidavits establishing lawful ownership, Judge Rachel A. Marquez has enabled the misconduct by shielding culpable parties and targeting the rightful beneficiaries asserting their rights. The suit cites violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 (RICO), 241 (conspiracy against rights), and 1341 (mail fraud), along with California Civil Code §§ 1709 (fraud) and 3346 (treble damages for wrongful injury to property). This case exemplifies judicial corruption—where bar-protected insiders act with impunity while private Americans are silenced. The court’s response will reveal whether justice, equity, and due process remain alive in California.
UCC §§ 1-103, 3-104, 3-601, and 3-603 operate as the foundation of lawful commercial remedy across all 50 states. Section 1-103 ensures equity, common law, and the Law Merchant remain enforceable alongside UCC processes. Section 3-104 defines what qualifies as a negotiable instrument—an essential element in debtdischarge. Section 3-601 codifies the principle that all obligations can be discharged by contract, agreement, or valid performance. Section 3-603 delivers the lethal commercial strike: once lawful tender is made—even if refused—the obligation is discharged as a matter of law. These statutes, codified in every U.S. jurisdiction, are the legal artillery that allow secured parties and private trusts to assert control, tender discharge, and permanently terminate fraudulent or unperfected claims. Use them with precision—or be used by those who will.
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.
