Oath Over Freedom How Politicians Surrender Natural Rights to Serve the Corporate State

Oath Over Freedom: How Politicians Surrender Natural Rights to Serve the Corporate State

When a politician accepts public office, they operate under a different legal capacity — no longer as a private State Citizen with unalienable rights, but as a U.S. citizen bound to statutory obligations. Their oath of office contracts them into fiduciary duty, placing them under administrative and commercial law, not common law. This transition subordinates natural rights in favor of public trust obligations. Under doctrines like Clearfield Trust and UCC § 1-201(27), politicians act as agents of the corporate UNITED STATES and are subject to public policy, not sovereign authority. In essence, holding office means operating as a trustee of the public, not a free individual.

when a politician assumes office and acts as a public official, they waive or subordinate certain natural rights in favor of public duties and statutory obligations. Here’s a breakdown:


1. U.S. Citizen vs. State Citizen (Private vs. Public Capacity)

  • A natural person or State Citizen holds unalienable rights (natural rights) by birth.

  • A U.S. citizen, as defined in the 14th Amendment and federal codes (see 26 U.S.C. § 7701, 28 U.S.C. § 3002), is a subject of federal jurisdiction — effectively a legal fiction (a trust, corporation, or public franchise).


2. Politicians Voluntarily Enter Public Office

  • They swear an oath of office — binding them to uphold statutes, rules, and constitutions.

  • By doing so, they operate in a public trust capacity, subject to:

    • Administrative procedure.

    • Commercial liability (under Clearfield Doctrine).

    • Federal statutes, codes, and public policy.


3. Legal Consequences of Taking Office

  • They become public officers, meaning:

    • They no longer act in their private sovereign capacity while performing their duties.

    • They are agents of the corporate entity — the “UNITED STATES” or the STATE OF [X].

  • This means they effectively surrender or suspend their natural rights while operating in that office — not in their personal life (unless fully contracted into the public system).


4. Relevant Doctrines and Citations

  • Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943) — once the government enters commerce, it descends to the level of a private corporation and loses sovereign immunity.

  • UCC 1-201(27) — public officers are fiduciaries and debtors by role.

  • Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) — waiver of constitutional rights must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent — politicians do this via oath.


Summary

Yes, when a politician accepts public office:

  • They act in a public/commercial capacity, not a private sovereign one.

  • They contract away the free exercise of some natural rights while in office, functioning instead under statutes, policies, and corporate code.

  • They become part of the public trust, and are liable under fiduciary and administrative law, not common law.

Leave your vote

9383822 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 !!