We’re sharing the following executive summary from Aaron Prince because it speaks to a growing concern in our communities: Are men and women being routed into colorable venues where private policy displaces constitutional guarantees? Aaron lays out a jurisdictional challenge—demanding oaths and bonds, proof of lawful delegation, and disclosures about fiduciary instruments (CUSIP/CRIS, etc.). Whether you agree with every claim or not, the core call is clear: verify authority, require full disclosure, and stand in your rights.
Link to Facebook post:
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=670500016105661&set=a.637968996025430
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Emergency Notice and Jurisdictional Challenge Against Unauthorized BAR Activity and Colorable Court Operations
Page 1 of 11
https://www.scribd.com/…/Emergency-Notice-and…
I. Purpose of This Notice
This Executive Summary serves as formal, lawful notice and jurisdictional challenge to the pervasive operation of administrative courts and officers acting under unauthorized, foreign-derived authority. It identifies fundamental violations of constitutional, fiduciary, and commercial law, and demands the immediate cessation of ultra vires activities, disclosure of hidden financial instruments and agency contracts, and redress for systemic injury. This Notice is not a petition — it is a demand, executed under standing lawful authority and public right of inquiry.
II. Basis of Challenge: Unauthorized BAR Activity & Foreign Agency
Conflict
This Notice challenges the presumption of lawful authority asserted by officers of the court who are members of private BAR associations—entities not created by constitutional legislation but by foreign-inspired charter, operating in commercial capacity without full disclosure or the informed consent of the governed.
BAR membership operates as an undisclosed foreign agency relationship under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), 22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq., where attorneys pledge allegiance to private legal societies (e.g., British Accreditation Registry), bound by proprietary codes (ABA Model Rules) rather than constitutional mandates.
These actors routinely function as:
• Unregistered foreign agents under color of law;
• Trustees of undisclosed estates without valid contract;
• Fiduciaries of bonded securities created via CUSIP or CRIS-linked instruments, derived from the NAME IN CAPS fiction.
This constitutes a commercial breach of trust, an ultra vires act, and a violation of the Supremacy Clause (Article VI), which demands that all public officers derive authority from the Constitution, not private corporate or guild affiliations.
III. Nature of Harm and Injury: Systemic Violations and Fiduciary Breaches
The harms giving rise to this emergency notice are neither speculative nor isolated. They are systemic and recurring across this District and others, affecting living men and women whose estates, liberties, and rights have been administratively converted and commercially exploited under color of law. The injuries include, but are not limited to:
1. Constructive Fraud and Estate Conversion
• Estates created under the NAME IN CAPS construct (e.g., JOHN DOE) have been securitized into financial instruments without the consent or knowledge of the living beneficiary.
• Court clerks, judges, and associated officers routinely act as fiduciaries of bonded securities—creating CUSIPs and CRIS accounts—without disclosure or lawful delegation.
2. Foreign Agency without Disclosure
• BAR members operate under private foreign-derived codes (e.g., ABA Model Rules, UCC) with no full disclosure to the alleged “client” or the court record.
• This constitutes an undeclared agency relationship, commercial fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty.
3. Denial of Access to Article III Judicial Forum
• Men and women seeking redress are funneled into administrative tribunals disguised as judicial courts, governed by private rules and foreign corporate policy, rather than the common law or organic Constitution.
4. Commercial and Fiduciary Trespass
• Without verified jurisdiction or wet-ink contract, officers issue orders, impose penalties, and extract funds, effectively engaging in unauthorized practice of fiduciary management over private property and personage.
5. Violation of Due Process and Informed Consent
• Critical elements of legal standing, jurisdiction, and cause of action are withheld or obscured, nullifying any semblance of fair trial or lawful procedure.
These harms constitute unlawful takings, commercial extortion, fiduciary malfeasance, and violations of unalienable rights, actionable under both constitutional and commercial remedies.
IV. Constitutional and Commercial Grounds for Challenge
This Notice is issued upon well-established constitutional authority and controlling commercial doctrine, asserting the fundamental rights and protections guaranteed to the people and exposing the legal nullity of proceedings conducted outside these boundaries.
A. Constitutional Foundations
• Article III, U.S. Constitution: Establishes judicial power in courts of law, not administrative tribunals or commercial venues. Any action outside an Article III court with proper jurisdiction is null and void ab initio.
• Article VI (Supremacy Clause): Only laws made in pursuance of the Constitution are valid. Statutory or policy-based authority that conflicts with this supremacy is not binding.
• First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments: These secure due process, private property rights, the right to redress, the right to confront accusers, and the reserved powers of the people.
B. Commercial and Fiduciary Authorities
• Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943): Once the government enters commerce, it relinquishes its sovereign immunity and is subject to the same obligations as any private party.
• Trust Law and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC): Fiduciary agents who engage in unconsented management or conversion of private estates (trusts or names in all caps) without a valid contract are subject to commercial penalties and civil liabilities.
• Foreign Agents Registration Act (22 U.S.C. § 612): Requires disclosure of foreign
representation or policy enforcement—failure to do so when operating under international codes, such as BAR-affiliated conduct, constitutes concealment and fraud.
C. Recent Judicial Precedents
• INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983): Reinforces that separation of powers and procedural formalities are mandatory for constitutional enforcement.
• Axon Enterprise v. FTC and Loper Bright v. Raimondo: Establish the right of individuals to challenge the constitutional validity of administrative agency actions.
• Chevron Deference (under reconsideration): Once used to defer to agency interpretation, now faces serious scrutiny, reaffirming the demand for judicial, not administrative, enforcement of rights.
D. Rules and Codes Requiring Acknowledgment
• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 5.1: Requires constitutional challenges to be formally addressed by the court.
• Rule 11(b): Certifies that all representations to the court are based in fact and law; operating under color of law or false jurisdiction violates this rule and invites sanctions.
V. Demands for Disclosure and Remedy
The following demands are made as a matter of constitutional right, fiduciary accountability, and public interest. These are issued under lawful standing and pursuant to established legal and commercial precedent. Each item below constitutes a material demand for disclosure, and noncompliance shall be treated as constructive fraud, color of office, and ultra vires conduct.
A. Mandatory Disclosures
1. Proof of Lawful Delegation of Authority
o Provide the constitutional, statutory, or contractual source delegating lawful authority to regulate, prosecute, or administrate over the undersigned without voluntary agreement.
2. Valid Oaths of Office and Bonds
o Produce current and certified Oaths of Office and Surety Bonds for all judges, prosecutors, clerks, deputies, bailiffs, and any agents acting under alleged authority.
3. FARA Registration (22 U.S.C. § 612)
o Demonstrate that any BAR-licensed actor, court officer, or agency representative is not operating as an undisclosed foreign agent under foreign-derived legal policy or standards.
4. Fiduciary Instruments, CUSIPs, and Bonds
o Disclose whether any of the following instruments have been created or monetized from the legal name, estate, or case of the undersigned:
CUSIP-linked securities
IRS Forms 1099-A, 1099-C
Treasury Direct Accounts
Court Registry Investment System (CRIS) accounts
SF-24, SF-25, SF-25A, SF-273, SF-274, SF-275, SF-1414, SF-1415, SF-1416, or OF-91 bonding documents
5. Administrative and Commercial Registration
o Provide all DUNS numbers, CAGE codes, and federal procurement identifiers for the Court, Clerk, Prosecutor’s Office, or law enforcement entities involved in the action.
6. Legal Foundation for NAME IN CAPS Usage
o Produce the contract, power of attorney, trust instrument, or consent that authorizes the use, administration, or securitization of the NAME IN CAPS entity as collateral or debtor.
IV. Constitutional and Commercial Grounds for Challenge
This Notice is issued upon well-established constitutional authority and controlling commercial doctrine, asserting the fundamental rights and protections guaranteed to the people and exposing the legal nullity of proceedings conducted outside these boundaries.
A. Constitutional Foundations
• Article III, U.S. Constitution: Establishes judicial power in courts of law, not administrative tribunals or commercial venues. Any action outside an Article III court with proper jurisdiction is null and void ab initio.
• Article VI (Supremacy Clause): Only laws made in pursuance of the Constitution are valid. Statutory or policy-based authority that conflicts with this supremacy is not binding.
• First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments: These secure due process, private property rights, the right to redress, the right to confront accusers, and the reserved powers of the people.
B. Commercial and Fiduciary Authorities
• Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943): Once the government enters commerce, it relinquishes its sovereign immunity and is subject to the same obligations as any private party.
• Trust Law and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC): Fiduciary agents who engage in unconsented management or conversion of private estates (trusts or names in all caps) without a valid contract are subject to commercial penalties and civil liabilities.
• Foreign Agents Registration Act (22 U.S.C. § 612): Requires disclosure of foreign representation or policy enforcement—failure to do so when operating under international codes, such as BAR-affiliated conduct, constitutes concealment and fraud.
C. Recent Judicial Precedents
• INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983): Reinforces that separation of powers and procedural formalities are mandatory for constitutional enforcement.
• Axon Enterprise v. FTC and Loper Bright v. Raimondo: Establish the right of individuals to challenge the constitutional validity of administrative agency actions.
• Chevron Deference (under reconsideration): Once used to defer to agency interpretation, now faces serious scrutiny, reaffirming the demand for judicial, not administrative, enforcement of rights.
D. Rules and Codes Requiring Acknowledgment
• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 5.1: Requires constitutional challenges to be formally addressed by the court.
• Rule 11(b): Certifies that all representations to the court are based in fact and law; operating under color of law or false jurisdiction violates this rule and invites sanctions.
V. Demands for Disclosure and Remedy
The following demands are made as a matter of constitutional right, fiduciary accountability, and public interest. These are issued under lawful standing and pursuant to established legal and commercial precedent. Each item below constitutes a material demand for disclosure, and noncompliance shall be treated as constructive fraud, color of office, and ultra vires conduct.
A. Mandatory Disclosures
1. Proof of Lawful Delegation of Authority
o Provide the constitutional, statutory, or contractual source delegating lawful authority to regulate, prosecute, or administrate over the undersigned without voluntary agreement.
2. Valid Oaths of Office and Bonds
o Produce current and certified Oaths of Office and Surety Bonds for all judges, prosecutors, clerks, deputies, bailiffs, and any agents acting under alleged authority.
3. FARA Registration (22 U.S.C. § 612)
o Demonstrate that any BAR-licensed actor, court officer, or agency representative is not operating as an undisclosed foreign agent under foreign-derived legal policy or standards.
4. Fiduciary Instruments, CUSIPs, and Bonds
o Disclose whether any of the following instruments have been created or monetized from the legal name, estate, or case of the undersigned:
CUSIP-linked securities
IRS Forms 1099-A, 1099-C
Treasury Direct Accounts
Court Registry Investment System (CRIS) accounts
SF-24, SF-25, SF-25A, SF-273, SF-274, SF-275, SF-1414, SF-1415, SF-1416, or OF-91 bonding documents
5. Administrative and Commercial Registration
o Provide all DUNS numbers, CAGE codes, and federal procurement identifiers for the Court, Clerk, Prosecutor’s Office, or law enforcement entities involved in the action.
6. Legal Foundation for NAME IN CAPS Usage
o Produce the contract, power of attorney, trust instrument, or consent that authorizes the use, administration, or securitization of the NAME IN CAPS entity as collateral or debtor.
VI. Consequences of Non-Disclosure and Remedy Failure
Noncompliance with the above lawful demands constitutes both civil and criminal liability. The continued concealment of material facts, lack of verifiable jurisdiction, and fraudulent conduct under administrative or foreign-derived authority will trigger the following consequences:
A. Legal and Commercial Liability
Violation:
Fraudulent conversion of estate or name trust
Liability Exposure:
Up to $250,000 per count
Applicable Law / Citation:
18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343 (Mail/Wire Fraud)
Violation:
Unauthorized use of IRS instruments
Liability Exposure:
Civil and criminal penalties
Applicable Law / Citation:
26 U.S.C. §§ 7201–7206
Violation:
Securities fraud via CUSIP monetization
Liability Exposure:
SEC & criminal liability
Applicable Law / Citation:
SEC Rule 10b-5, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)
Violation:
Denial of constitutional access to court
Liability Exposure:
Civil rights violations
Applicable Law / Citation:
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986
Violation:
Fiduciary breach and concealment
Liability Exposure:
Full commercial liability
Applicable Law / Citation:
Uniform Trust Code; Common Law Fiduciary Duties
Violation:
False representation or assumed jurisdiction
Liability Exposure:
Voids all judgments
Applicable Law / Citation:
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944)
Violation:
Unauthorized BAR activity under color of law
Liability Exposure:
Constructive fraud and misrepresentation
Applicable Law / Citation:
18 U.S.C. § 912; 22 U.S.C. § 612 (FARA)
Violation:
Use of NAME IN CAPS for securitization
Liability Exposure:
Identity theft, unlawful enrichment
Applicable Law / Citation:
18 U.S.C. § 1028; 31 U.S.C. § 3729
B. International and Human Rights Implications
• Violations of Article 6 and Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: right to recognition before the law, and protection from arbitrary interference.
• Breaches of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)—particularly Articles 2, 14, and 26—governing fair trial, equal protection, and freedom from unlawful coercion.
• Actionable grievances under customary international law and emerging standards of legal personhood, self-determination, and anti-corruption treaties.
C. Notice of Liability for Continued Engagement
Any further judicial, administrative, or commercial activity taken in the name of the undersigned—or based on assumptions of delegated authority—without meeting the above disclosure requirements shall be regarded as:
• A fraudulent concealment of material facts;
• A violation of fiduciary transparency;
• An act of colorable jurisdiction, creating personal and institutional liability;
• In extreme cases, it may constitute constructive treason under the public trust doctrine.
Notice: Any denial of this claim shall be treated as bad faith, commercial dishonor, and presumptive agreement with all material facts presented.
VIII. Closing Statement and Certificate of Service
Closing Declaration
I, the undersigned, do affirm under penalty of perjury under the laws of the united States of America and under international law, that the foregoing facts, claims, and jurisdictional challenges are true, correct, and made in good faith to the best of my knowledge and belief.
This Notice constitutes a lawful instrument of record, made in exercise of constitutionally protected rights, and must be treated with full force of law, both domestically and under treaty obligations.
All parties, officers, and agents receiving this Notice are now under obligation to respond, rebut, or comply in full, or otherwise face liability for willful dishonor, fiduciary breach, and constructive fraud.
Failure to respond in substance within the prescribed time shall constitute estoppel, tacit acquiescence, and admission of all facts stated herein.
Certificate of Service
Executed this ___ day of ____________, 2025.
Delivered via:
• In-Person Delivery
• Registered U.S. Mail
• Electronic Filing System (ECF/CM)
• Fax or Certified Electronic Service
To:
• Clerk of Court
• Presiding Judge
• U.S. Attorney / State Prosecutor
• Court Administrator
• Any Other Interested or Named Party
Respectfully submitted,
https://www.scribd.com/…/Emergency-Notice-and…
Emergency Notice and Jurisdictional Challenge Against Unauthorized BAR Activity and Colorable Court Operations
Page 1 of 11
__________________________________
Credit: Executive Summary by Aaron Prince. Republished for educational discussion. Nothing here is legal advice; do your own research and consult trusted counsel where needed.
Freedom Dove 
Leave a comment