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

Screen Shot 2025 07 08 at 9.35.01 PM

EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT MANDAMUS VANISHES: Ninth Circuit Fraud, Tampering, Judicial Collusion, and a Federal Cover-Up Seems Unequivocal

Federal courts are now under scrutiny after a verified Writ of Mandamus vanished from the Ninth Circuit docket without explanation—raising grave concerns of judicial tampering, fraud, and systemic misconduct. Judge Sunshine Sykes defied clear jurisdictional divestiture by issuing rulings on a matter under appellate review, violating 28 U.S.C. § 144 and § 1651. This article exposes a disturbing pattern of ultra vires acts, denial of due process, and potential RICO violations implicating both district and appellate judges.Ask ChatGPT

lawful tender discharges the debt

When the Debt Is Discharged but the LIEN Remains: Why Auto and Home Loan Lenders Who Ignore Lawful Tender Are Committing Fraud and Commercial Crimes

This article delivers a devastating legal breakdown proving that lawful tender—once made and unrebutted—discharges auto loan debt under UCC §§ 3-601, 3-603, 3-310, 2-206, and 1-103, as codified in Cal. Com. Code §§ 3601, 3603, 3310, 2206, 1103, Fla. Stat. §§ 673.6011, 673.6031, 673.3101, 672.206, 671.103, and N.C.G.S. §§ 25-3-601, 25-3-603, 25-3-310, 25-2-206, 25-1-103. It exposes refusal to release a lien after lawful discharge as actionable fraud, conversion, embezzlement, and obstruction under state and federal law. With verified case law and commercial principles, it explains how silence equals acceptance and how creditors become commercially estopped. A must-read for secured parties, fiduciaries, and equity claimants demanding lien removal, declaratory relief, and commercial remedy.

Screen Shot 2025 06 28 at 4.55.33 PM

How a Perfected Security Agreement and UCC Filings Strip Servicers of Foreclosure Rights

A properly executed Security Agreement assigning all assets, rights, and interests to a private trust—paired with a UCC-1 financing statement and UCC-3 amendment claiming the Deed of Trust and Note—lawfully establishes the trust as the secured party and real party in interest. This perfected interest, under UCC §§ 9-203, 9-509, 3-301, and supported by controlling case law (e.g., Carpenter v. Longan, Ibanez, Veal), strips any servicer or third-party of standing to foreclose unless they possess the original Note, prove an unbroken chain of title, and rebut the trust’s perfected claim. Without that, all foreclosure attempts become void ab initio, commercial dishonor, and legal trespass on private trust property.

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 !!