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

Judicial Integrity in Action: Judge Wesley Hsu and Magistrate Maria Audero Honorably Uphold Due Process in Kevin: Walker vs Chad Bianco RICO and 42 U.S.C. 1983 Case

Judicial Integrity in Action: Judge Wesley Hsu and Magistrate Maria Audero Honorably Uphold Due Process in Kevin: Walker vs Chad Bianco RICO and 42 U.S.C. 1983 Case

Judge Wesley Hsu’s and/or Magistrate Maria Audero’s Court took a significant step toward restoring judicial integrity by docketing and honorably backdating Kevin: Realworldfare’s VERIFIED Affidavit asserting State Citizenship and constitutional standing in case 5:25-cv-00646-WLH-MAA. This filing directly rebuts prior false presumptions labeling him a U.S. citizen or ward of the State. In contrast to prior judicial misconduct by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, who obstructed identical filings, Hsu and Audero’s actions demonstrate procedural fidelity and impartiality. Their conduct marks a hopeful departure from the systemic corruption plaguing courts in Riverside County. The case highlights growing public scrutiny and demand for lawful adjudication based on record, not presumption.

Affidavit Delivered to Judge Wesley Hsu's Court in Kevin Walker vs Chad Bianco Remains Undocketed — Delay or Concealment? Benefit of the Doubt Extended, For Now

Affidavit Delivered to Judge Wesley Hsu’s Court in Kevin Walker vs Chad Bianco Remains Undocketed — Delay or Concealment? Benefit of the Doubt Extended, For Now

This article exposes a troubling pattern of judicial misconduct in California’s federal courts, where verified affidavits asserting State Citizenship and national status have been received but concealed from the official record. Specifically, it highlights the nondocketing of a key affidavit in Kevin: Walker v. Bianco et al. before Judge Wesley Hsu, while extending temporary benefit of the doubt due to possible administrative backlog. The article also touches on and reconfirms how Judge Jesus G. Bernal falsely claimed non-response in a related case to justify an unlawful dismissal, now under appeal. These actions collectively suggest systemic obstruction, due process violations, and potential criminal liability under multiple federal statutes.

Jurisdiction Citizenship and Federal Zones The Truth Behind Wong Kim Ark and the Buck Act of 1940

Jurisdiction, Citizenship, and Federal Zones: The Truth Behind Wong Kim Ark and the Buck Act of 1940

This article explores the crucial legal distinctions between a State Citizen and a U.S. citizen (14th Amendment subject) by analyzing the Supreme Court case Wong Kim Ark v. United States and the jurisdictional implications of the Buck Act of 1940. It reveals how federal jurisdiction is not based on geography, but on consent and contractual participation in federal benefit programs. Through detailed legal reasoning, it explains how one can owe allegiance to the United States as a constitutional Republic without being subject to its corporate statutory codes. The piece provides actionable remedies for rebutting federal presumptions and restoring lawful State Citizenship.

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 !!