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

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

In the complex web of legal definitions, statuses, and commercial roles, few questions are more misunderstood than whether a U.S. citizen qualifies as an authorized representative of the United States. While mainstream belief often blurs the line between identity and agency, a closer look at statutory law, agency principles, and commercial reality reveals a sharp and critical distinction.

Original on Realworldfare 


⚖️ Legal Status of a “U.S. Citizen

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1401, a U.S. citizen is:

This status is created by statute and governs one’s participation in the federal franchise system—Social Security, IRS tax liabilities, passports, military draft, and other civil obligations. A U.S. citizen is, in essence, a beneficiary and subject of the corporate United States (see: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15)United States as a “federal corporation”).


🛑 What Is an “Authorized Representative”?

An authorized representative is a legal agent empowered to act on behalf of a principal—typically by contract, statutory delegation, or written authorization. In the context of the United States government, an authorized representative includes:

  • Federal officers or employees acting under delegated authority,

  • Attorneys licensed to represent government interests,

  • Agents appointed via power of attorney or special commission,

  • Officers acting under military, civil, or diplomatic orders.

See relevant authorities:

  • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 17(c) – Capacity to sue or be sued through representatives

  • 31 U.S.C. § 3729 – False Claims Act (qui tam “relators” acting as authorized agents of the United States)

  • 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b) – Privacy Act protections involving representatives

Without official appointment, contractual delegation, or a letter of authority, no person is presumed to be a representative of the United States.


⚠️ U.S. Citizens Are Not Automatically Agents of Government

Contrary to the assumption that “citizenship equals representation,” a U.S. citizen has no inherent agency relationship with the federal government. In fact:

  • The citizen is the regulated party, not the regulator.

  • The citizen is the subject, not the sovereign.

  • The citizen is the taxpayer and licensee, not the issuer of licenses.

A U.S. citizen is the end-user of services provided by the U.S. government’s corporate structure—not its legal or contractual representative. No lawful presumption of representation arises from citizenship alone.


🧾 The All-Caps NAME and the Real Representative

In commercial and equity law, the U.S. citizen NAME (in ALL CAPS) is treated as a legal fiction—an ens legis. It is:

  • A transmitting utility (see: UCC § 9-102),

  • A decedent estate or trust entity,

  • The debtor in virtually all commercial contracts with government agencies.

The living man or woman—properly styled in upper/lowercase—may act as the authorized representative of that legal fiction (e.g., under UCC 3-402, 3-501, or 1-103). But that is a private commercial relationship, not a federal appointment.

Thus, the only “authorized representative” role the average person may legally assume is representative of the ALL CAPS corporate entity the United States created for commercial administration—not of the United States itself.


✅ Final Word: No Representation Without Delegation

To be an authorized representative of the United States, one must:

  1. Hold a valid appointment, delegation, or commission;

  2. Act under specific statutory or regulatory authority;

  3. Operate in a fiduciary or agency role on behalf of the United States.

Absent such conditions, a U.S. citizen is not an agent of the United States, but rather its subject or its legal fiction’s beneficiary. Knowing the difference is essential in law, contracts, and courtrooms—because jurisdiction begins with status, and status determines standing.

Leave your vote

3523746 points
More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

20410479 329d 40a2 8d4d 492022986bb5

Void Means Void: When Judges Act Without Jurisdiction, Their Orders Are Legal Nullities

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.

Riverside County Commissioner Tamara Wagner Sued Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Railroading Plaintiffs Under Color of Law Without Jurisdiction

Riverside County Commissioner Tamara Wagner Sued Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Railroading Plaintiffs Under Color of Law Without Jurisdiction

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 Can Be Sued: Public Servants, Oaths, and Liability Under the Clearfield Doctrine AND 42 U.S.C. 1983

Judges Can Be Sued: Public Servants, Oaths, and Liability Under the Clearfield Doctrine AND 42 U.S.C. 1983

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.

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 !!