Law Enforcement Education Portal

Upholding Your Oath, Protecting the Rights of the People

This page is for sheriffs, deputies, peace officers, and law enforcement agencies who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and serve the People. It is not anti-law enforcement — it is a lawful reminder of where your duty lies and how to honor your oath while staying within your lawful jurisdiction.

 Who We Are

We are private Americans who have lawfully corrected our status under Title 8 USC § 1101(a)(21) and (a)(22)(B) to be recognized as noncitizen nationals — meaning we are Americans by birth or blood, but not subject to federal corporate jurisdiction unless contracted.

We are not enemies. We are not “sovereign citizens.”
We are peaceful people asserting our rights and correcting a silent presumption of legal status we never knowingly agreed to.

 Peace Officer vs. Policy Enforcer

There is a vital difference between the role of a peace officer (as defined under common law) and a code enforcement agent (under private corporate policy):

Peace OfficerPolicy Enforcer

Protects rightsEnforces codes/statutes

Works under the ConstitutionWorks under municipal codes

Accountable to the peopleOften unaware of lawful limits

Requires probable causeOften acts under policy assumption

We honor peace officers who serve with integrity. We only challenge overreach or enforcement done outside lawful jurisdiction.

 Jurisdiction Matters

A valid arrest, citation, or seizure must be based on proper jurisdiction — subject matter, territorial, and personal.

Most Americans are presumed to be U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment, subject to federal municipal jurisdiction. That status was never disclosed, and most never knowingly agreed to it.

We have lawfully rebutted that presumption and operate as:

• Noncitizen Nationals

• Private Americans

• Living men and women under common law

We retain all natural rights, and without a contract or damaged party, no code or policy applies to us under law.

 Supreme Court & Federal Backing

Here are some legal precedents and statutes that support our position:

• Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

  "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

  “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

• 18 USC § 241 & § 242

  Criminal charges for conspiracy or deprivation of rights under color of law.

• 42 USC § 1983

  Civil liability for officials who act outside lawful authority.

 What We Expect from Law Enforcement

We ask all officers and departments to:

 Honor your oath to the Constitution (state and federal)
Understand the difference between a corporate policy and a lawful arrest
Recognize status declarations and peaceful assertion of rights
Avoid unlawful seizure or harassment without a warrant, damaged party, or sworn complaint
Hold yourselves and others accountable to lawful limits of authority

 Respectful Noncompliance ≠ Criminal Behavior

We are peaceful. We travel freely.
We record our status publicly.
We carry ID and paperwork when needed.
We may decline license, registration, or insurance under lawful claim of right — not to evade law, but to reject adhesion contracts that do not apply to us as private Americans.

 Final Thought to Deputies and Chiefs

You swore an oath — not to the mayor, not to a corporate city charter — but to the Constitution and the People.

When a man or woman presents a lawful declaration of status, peaceably asserts their rights, and harms no one — your duty is to protect them, not detain them for refusing to submit to corporate statutes.

We are not asking you to agree. We are asking you to investigate, read, and honor your oath.

 Supporting Documents Available for Download

• Affidavit of Status (noncitizen national)

• Law of the Land Public Notice

• Color of Law quick guide for officers

• Constitutional Duty checklist for Sheriffs

• ACTS, CODES and STATUTES are not “Laws”

• ​

• February 24, 2023common-law, What is Law

• We the people are sovereign and not subject to the “laws” of “government UNLESS we consent. So, best you learn how “they” coerce, entrap, mischaracterize and pressgang you into foreign un-known jurisdictions using fear, force and fraud.

• ​

• Maxim – The law does not protect he who slumbers on his rights.

• “Sovereignty itself is… not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law… while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.” (Justice Thomas Stanley Matthews in Yick Wo v. Hopkins [p. 370]);

• ​

• ​

• ​

• Note, Roman Dutch  and English “Common Law” is NOT common law, it is Admiralty, Mercantile, Corporate Sea Rules, NOT law.

• Think of the Dutch East India Company – Roman Dutch “Law” is founded in the VOC Octrooi and  Ordinances.

• ​

• Here are a few U.S. citations regarding acts, codes and statutes:

• US. SUPREME COURT DECISION – “All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…” Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).

• ​

• “A “Statute” is not a Law,” (Flouraoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248)

• ​

• “A “Code” or “Statute: is not Law,” (Flouraoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248)

• ​

• “Statutes apply only to state created creatures known as corporations no matter whether [creatures of statute and offices of] state, local, or federal [government].” (Bolonial) Pipeline Co. v. Traigle, 421 US 100. (1975).

• ​

• US. SUPREME COURT DECISION – “…every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent.” Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.

• ​

• US. SUPREME COURT DECISION – The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law”, [Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261]

• ​

• People v. Ortiz, (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 286. “A statute does not trump the

• Constitution.”

• ​

• Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, “Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.”

• ​

• Supreme Court Ruling [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489] “The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.”

• ​

• Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262 (1963): “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.”

• In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: “The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”  

• ​

• Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961: “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”

• ​

• To be convicted under a statute you must give your consent, and i do not give my consent.

• ​

• City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944 “To take away all remedy for the enforcement of a right is to take away the right itself. But that is not within the power of the State.”

• ​

• In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100 “Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law.”

• ​

• Brookfield Const. Co. v. Stewart, 284 F. Supp. 94. “An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the government.”

• ​

• U.S. v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982) “There is no crueler

• tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice …” 

• 
Griffin v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 130

• 10 Co. 77; Dig. 2. 1. 20; Story, Confl. Laws ‘ 539; Broom, Max. 100, 101: “One who exercises jurisdiction out of his territory cannot be obeyed with impunity.”


• ​

• Everybody has the right to resist unlawful arrest with lethal force if necessary.

• “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.

• This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted,

• the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest,

• from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

• ​

• “An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. If the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

• ​

• “When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind.

• “These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

• ​

• “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

• ​

• “Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self-defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

• ​

• “One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

• ​

• “Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ”a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.” There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, “If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.” That was the “ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

• As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

• ​

• ​