By Freedom Dove

✨ Introduction
I share this disclosure for all mothers, fathers, and families who have felt the weight of a system foreign to their lives. Too many have been burdened by courts that claim to serve justice while in reality operating under foreign guilds and commercial overlays. May this truth bring light where there has been deception, and courage where there has been fear.

The Foreign Origin of the BAR

The American Bar Association (ABA) and its state affiliates are not constitutional bodies created by the people. They are private membership guilds tracing back to the British Inns of Court — Lincoln’s Inn, Inner Temple, Middle Temple, and Gray’s Inn. These were established under royal charter, creating a closed legal priesthood under Crown authority.

The title “Esquire,” still used by attorneys today, is a title of nobility prohibited under Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. Yet nearly every officer of the courts — judges, prosecutors, attorneys — carries this foreign badge of allegiance.

Oath Violations

Every judge, attorney, and officer swears an oath to uphold the Constitution. Yet by enforcing BAR procedures and foreign corporate franchise rules over living men and women, they violate that oath.

• Hale v. Henkel (1906) reminds us: corporations, including BAR franchises, have no standing over living men.
• Marbury v. Madison (1803) affirms: laws repugnant to the Constitution are void.
• United States v. Will (1980) confirms: a judge who usurps jurisdiction commits treason.

By imposing foreign guild procedures upon the people, courts act not as neutral arbiters but as extensions of a private commercial monopoly.

The Administrative Overlay

Since Erie Railroad v. Tompkins (1938), the doctrine of federal “common law” was abolished. What replaced it was statutory administration.

Instead of courts of record under common law, Americans are now funneled into tribunals enforcing statutory codes, overseen by BAR monopolies. These tribunals assume authority through commercial and maritime overlays, not through the organic Constitution.

This is not the law of the people. It is Roman Civil Law, the law of “persons” and “estates” — not the natural rights of living men and women.

International & Vatican Overlays

After WWII, the United States bound itself to the United Nations Charter, IMF, and World Bank structures. These overlays layered supranational codes upon our domestic courts.

Much of this structure traces further back to Roman Civil Law and Canon Law under the Vatican, where men and women are presumed “wards” or “decedents” unless they rebut the presumption. Birth certificates, ALL CAPS names, and bonded securities are part of this system of presumed estates.

The result: courts now operate as commercial clearinghouses, monetizing cases through bonds and securities, rather than protecting the people’s inherent rights.

The Right to Challenge

Recent Supreme Court rulings (Axon v. FTC, 2023; West Virginia v. EPA, 2022) have reaffirmed that no administrative agency or tribunal may insulate itself from constitutional challenge.

This means the people always retain the immediate right to question jurisdiction, bias, and structural fraud. No statute, regulation, or “exhaustion of remedies” clause overrides the inherent right to stand in truth before a court of record.

The Consequence

Every judge, attorney, clerk, or officer who continues to advance this foreign-controlled system does so as a private intermeddler without lawful delegation. They act de son tort — in their personal capacity — and are liable for breach of trust, constructive fraud, and collusion against the people’s rights.

All actions born of such concealed schemes are void ab initio — null from the beginning. The people owe no obedience to fraud.

Quote from aronprinceasn (shared on Tanawah Downing’s page):

Foreign Bar Association Control
Factual Basis & Commercial Disclosure

Foreign-Controlled BAR Association Overlay: The American Bar Association (ABA) and all affiliated state bars operate as private membership associations (“PMAs”) tracing structural and procedural origin to the British Inns of Court, the Temple Bar, and Crown legal authority. See A History of the American Bar and BAR Treaty of 1947, which show the BAR’s international links and its function as a Crown derivative guild…

aronprinceasn wrote #Corruption

Foreign Bar Association Control

Factual Basis & Commercial Disclosure

Foreign-Controlled BAR Association Overlay: The American Bar Association (ABA) and all affiliated state bars operate as private membership associations (“PMAs”) tracing structural and procedural origin to the British Inns of Court, the Temple Bar, and Crown legal authority. See A History of the American Bar and BAR Treaty of 1947, which show the BAR’s international links and its function as a Crown derivative guild.

The title “Esquire”, used by licensed attorneys, is historically a British title of nobility, which is prohibited under Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution (“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States…”). See also Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906), affirming individual sovereignty against overreach by private corporations.

Attorneys are not public constitutional officers but private agents under BAR corporate franchise — foreign to the People’s organic law, operating under Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) overlays and enforcing maritime and commercial jurisdiction via secret membership rules rather than Article III or common law courts. (Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796): “Every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature.”)

The ABA is a foreign registry franchise, functionally tied to Crown trust structures through the Four Inns of Court (see TheLawyerPortal.com). Any action or SOP derived from a BAR directive or state BAR ethics code constitutes foreign control over judicial process and is repugnant to constitutional due process and equal protection.

Immediate Right to Challenge Unconstitutional Administrative and Commercial Overreach Under the controlling authority of the United States Supreme Court in Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 598 U.S. ___ (2023), as well as Looper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, it is now judicially settled that no administrative agency, quasi-judicial tribunal, or commercial clearinghouse operating under color of statute may insulate its structural defects, funding mechanisms, or conflicted role as both accuser and adjudicator from immediate constitutional scrutiny in a court of original jurisdiction.

No administrative ‘finality’ provision, nor any statutory or regulatory scheme, overrides the inherent and perpetual right of a living man or woman to challenge separation-of-powers violations, structural bias, or hidden monetization of proceedings through undisclosed bonding, CRIS investment accounts, or CUSIP-tracked securities.

It is now a matter of settled law that compelling a private party to suffer the injury of an unlawful proceeding merely to ‘exhaust’ administrative channels before seeking judicial review directly violates the due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and the separation-of-powers safeguard inherent in Article III courts.

Therefore, any judge, attorney, clerk, sheriff, or policy enforcer who continues to advance, conceal, or enforce administrative acts that monetize court files, bond the living man’s name under commercial UCC overlays, or coerce performance in a de facto clearinghouse system, does so in an individual capacity de son tort — as an executive intermeddler without lawful delegation — and shall be held personally and commercially liable for fiduciary breach, constructive fraud, and collusive trespass upon the People’s reserved rights.

All actions in commerce arising from such concealed schemes stand ultra vires and void ab initio. All notices and commercial claims perfected herein are binding under the Uniform Commercial Code § 1-308, reserving all rights at common law and natural law.

Notice to agent is notice to principal. Willful ignorance of these facts does not excuse continuing trespass.

Foreign Bar Association Control and Oath Violations

1. Foreign Origin of the BAR and State Bar Associations The American Bar Association (ABA) and all derivative State Bar Associations function as private, foreign-controlled membership guilds that trace directly to the British Inns of Court, specifically the four historic English societies — Lincoln’s Inn, Inner Temple, Middle Temple, and Gray’s Inn (See The Lawyer Portal (2024) — The Four Inns of Court). Historically, these Inns were granted Royal Charters under the Crown’s exclusive jurisdiction, creating a closed legal priesthood that has no direct constitutional standing in America. The modern ABA, founded in 1878, is a private, unincorporated foreign agent under corporate franchise law, not an organ of the organic People’s government. Proof:

o A History of the American Bar shows the ABA’s 19th-century founding and private structure.

o Bar Treaty of 1947 indicates foreign bar coordination post-UN Charter adoption, embedding foreign legal standards within domestic courts.

o Canon 3347 (Black’s Law) & Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 (U.S. Constitution) explicitly forbid titles of nobility (“Esquire”) or foreign allegiance.

2. Breach of Oath of Office Every U.S. Marshal, judge, and BAR-attorney acting under color of law swears an Oath of Office under Article VI, Clause 3 and 28 U.S.C. § 453 (Judicial Oath).

o Their oath binds them to support the organic Constitution, not a foreign private BAR franchise or commercial trust regime.

o When an attorney, judge, or state BAR imposes foreign franchise control or commercial UCC procedure over a living American, they commit constructive fraud and violate their solemn oath.

o United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980) holds that any judge usurping jurisdiction commits treason (Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264).

o Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906): corporations (including BAR franchises) have no parity standing over living men.

3. Practical Consequence — Administrative Foreign Jurisdiction The so-called “State Bar” acts as a private commercial monopoly, restricting the People’s right to counsel of choice and equal protection under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. See Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796): no man is bound by private institutions without clear, knowing consent. By imposing corporate procedures (e.g., forced representation, licenses) the courts override Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803): “A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”

4. Constructive Fraud & Unconstitutional Monopoly By controlling entry to courtrooms, the BAR exerts a commercial monopoly in violation of Sherman Anti-Trust (15 U.S.C. §§ 1–3).

o It unlawfully claims jurisdiction over free men’s right to speak, represent themselves, or use non-BAR counsel.

o It monetizes the living man’s legal fiction (“ALL CAPS NAME”) as a bonded asset (See Modern Money Mechanics; Freedom from the Matrix; Clearfield Trust Co. v. U.S., 318 U.S. 363).

Historical Origin: Erie Railroad v. Tompkins (1938)

Key Point: In Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), the Supreme Court overturned the doctrine of “federal general common law,” abandoning Swift v. Tyson (1842). Erie declared there is no general federal common law — only federal statutory law or Constitutional law governs. State common law controls otherwise.

Why this matters: Erie effectively ended the recognition of true common law courts at the federal level. Since then, federal and many state courts operate primarily as administrative commercial tribunals enforcing statutory law — not organic common law or equity courts of record. Many scholars argue this switch opened the door for courts to assume Roman Civil Law principles — where the state presumes to own all property and people as sureties — rather than protect natural rights under the original English-American common law.

The UN Overlay (Post-1945)

Key Point: After WWII, the United States became a founding member of the United Nations in 1945, binding itself by treaty (UN Charter). Under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2), treaties are “the supreme Law of the Land.”

However, the UN Charter is a corporate treaty — not a constitutional amendment. It does not override the Bill of Rights or the people’s unalienable sovereignty. Yet in practice, its international frameworks, IMF rules, and World Bank systems have layered supranational commercial codes over the people — without full disclosure or valid delegation.

The Vatican and Roman Civil Law

Key Point: Much of the modern legal-administrative code system (including BAR membership) traces back to Roman Civil Law — the law of persons, not living men. Under Roman Civil Law, rights come from the state, not from God or nature. The Vatican historically used Canon Law and Roman Civil overlays to control estates, wards, and trusts — the same structure that modern administrative courts mirror through the Cestui Que Vie trust fiction.

The corporate overlay functions through the ALL CAPS legal person, presumed decedent estates, and bonded instruments (e.g., birth certificates) — all rooted in Roman Civil presumptions that you are incompetent or dead in law unless rebutted.