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

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 !!