Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) is the Sovereign law I am going to discuss first.. When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do […]

The UNITED STATES Corporation’s own rewritten Second Constitution, ACT of 1871; the Organic ratified Republic Constitution for the United States of America 1789 ALL individual states’ organic constitutions; the U.S. Supreme Court; and the STATES OF COURTS thru case law verifies that only Nationals, Citizens of a state, humans, and WE the People, are the

The “Sovereign Citizen Movement” FICTION was created, proposed, perpetrated, and penetrated into courts by lobbing by the BANKS and the UNITED STATES Government Corporations. In order to discredit Promissory Note debt instruments processed by other legitimate STATE Licensed companies other than Banks, Pretender Lenders, and Financial Institutions that commit Fraud in the form of a

Therefore, in guise of a non-existent Sovereign Citizen Movement. The COURT has a make-believe excuse that the bank gave them and claims that every Promissory Note or Security is fraudulent except the BANK’s Promissory Note.. Why is this when everything that deals with credit that you sign is a Promissory Note?? According to various supreme

The COURT, without any proof of law, state things like, “PLAINTIFF’S claims appears (or seems) to be based on theories promoted by the Sovereign Citizen Movement. Which have been unsuccessfully advanced throughout the country by individuals seeking to avoid taxes and debt repayment” and then quote a Private organization website instead of the law or

Courts have started referring to the Sovereign Citizen Movement in their court orders of dismissal. Either in the order itself or in the footnotes erroneously and wrongfully against their Public Oaths of Office of Public trust and without any proof that a Sovereign Citizen Movement even exists while possibly warring against the Constitutions by stating