Sovereign Citizen Crackpot Theories

Is The U.S. Is Still a British Colony?

Shortlink to this Blog:

If you are just starting learning about sovereign citizens and their ideas, you should probably look at my introductory blog which summarizes the sovereign citizen ideas and links to many of its favorite theories, at

Many of the theories used in the sovereign citizen movement tend to involve a wide range of interlocking — and down right weird — ideas. I feel they don’t stand up to logical analysis, but they do tend to interlock to support each other, so where to start with analyzing any one of them is difficult because it will eventually rely on some other absurd idea…and the problem is compounded because there is no single “authority” you can look to to see what the”official story” is.

In order to pursue the philosophies and contentions eventually I resorted to looking a number of sites and trying to pick one or two sites and ideas that seemed to be referred to often.

The site (American Patriot Friends Organization) came to be a touchstone as it collected and promulgated more than half a dozen of these ‘big ideas’. I am sure there are many and many many many different explanations for each contention, but let us go with this one.
So you may be surprised to find out

The United States is a British Colony

The TL;DR:

(1) Author starts by explaining that we actually lost the Revolution and the Treaty shows it; and
(2) whatever we gained in the Treaty we later gave up; then
(3) explains the War of 1812 as a British attempt to stop the “13th Amendment” from being ratified (thus two theories interlock )  and
(4) moves on to show the Civil War was all about property and because the South lost we don’t own anything, and all our taxes go to the King.

His factual basis is completely wrong on (1) and (2) and (3).  And I don’t think (4) is worthy of consideration.

This author (who is never identified) misreads documents; doesn’t realize when they are not referring to places in the U.S.; fails to recognize that the alleged amendment was never ratified; and if ratified would not do what he claims; and generally is among the most clueless of propositions you will ever encounter.

If you want to stop right here I won’t blame you…

Why are we a British Colony?

This is the Worst Document Ever in terms of outright baboonish errors; utterly clueless!

I refer to the author of this as our “ficto-historian” since he pretends to back things up with historical fact but in fact he is simply weaving tales of misunderstanding and misinformation.

1. We Lost The Revolution, Just Look at The Treaty of Paris to See That!

His Proposition: The Treaty of Paris between King George and the United States was in fact a treaty to give the King continuing and greater power because we had not won the Revolution.

Evidence: The King calls himself “Prince of the United States of America” in the introduction.

“I want you to notice in the first paragraph that the king refers to himself as prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States.  You know from this that the United States did not negotiate this Treaty of peace in a position of strength and victory, but it is obvious that Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams negotiated a Treaty of further granted privileges from the king of England.”


Author can’t read the simple words of the introduction of the two parties to the Treaty!

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the Hearts


  • [First party:] the most Serene and most Potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, Arch- Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc

and [the heart]


  • [Second Party:] the United States of America,

to forget all past Misunderstandings and Differences that have unhappily interrupted the good Correspondence and Friendship which they mutually wish to restore; and to establish…

Observe that“hearts” is plural and “they” refers to two entities: the King and the United States; but the author’s interpretation allows only one person in that whole paragraph, the King. If so, who the hell is “they”?


Evidence: Benjamin Franklin held an office, rank or honor granted by the King and was a subject of the King during the negotiations; so did the other negotiators. This means they were negotiating for the King, not for America.

“You also need to understand the players of those that negotiated this Treaty. For the Americans it was Benjamin Franklin Esqr., a great patriot and standard bearer of freedom. Or was he? His title includes Esquire.”

“An Esquire in the above usage was a granted rank and Title of nobility by the king, which is below Knight and above a yeoman, common man….Benjamin Franklin was the main negotiator for the terms of the Treaty, he spent most of the War traveling between England and France. The use of Esquire declared his and the others British subjection and loyalty to the crown.”

Error: “…he spent most of the War traveling between England and France.”

No. Franklin was American Ambassador to France during the War and would have been arrested and hanged for Treason if he entered Britain. He did not go to Britain during the war. Just complete untruth.

ErrorFranklin is addressed as Esquire, that is the truth in the paragraph, every other word is completely wrong. Esquire used with his name is not a rank,  nor is it a title of nobility, nor title of any kind, nor is it from the King.

Indeed it was not granted by anyone.

The use of that term was purely a courtesy; he was never made Esquire by the King; nor was he an attorney who might be called Esquire by admission to the Bar — though that too would not matter since the British practice of law was unconnected at that time to the American practice of law.

Franklin was addressed by the title of “Esquire” by virtue of his holding Rank as an Ambassador or head of mission in negotiating the Treaty. It was not an official title, it was simply an honorific used with men in important positions. In England the corresponding use would have been “His Excellency” for an Ambassador.

Error:   Importantly, for both this and other arguments, the meaning of Esquire is misstated. In all U.S. usages Esquire is not a title, nor rank, but merely an honorific used to denote one worthy of respect, similar to “The Honorable” appellation for members of Congress.

It is not conveyed by ANY U.S. law or colonial law; nor was it ever conveyed under any British law to Franklin.

Traditionally attorneys assumed “Esquire” to indicate their membership in the bar.  But there is no law anywhere in the US granting it, it’s just a practice, not commonly done at all now.  America never had a feudal society and the colonies did not grant titles on their own or on behalf of the King. Not even the Royal Colonies.

I am unaware of a single colonial granted a knighthood, made Esquire, or given a title, in the colonies. Likely some subjects in the colonies did gain honors from the King but it was done in Britain not in America.

And it was never an index of nobility anywhere, including Britain.

Nobility is heritable (until the late 20th Century); if your kids couldn’t inherit it, it was not nobility. Esquire is not a title you could pass to your child. Nor was it granted by the King, even in feudal days. Knights chose their squires.

There was and is no law or precedent in America for granting any titles and a different usage developed in the colonies that became the United States.

The usage of Esquire in America is and was purely nominal and honorary; in 1783 Franklin was not a subject of the King and did not and could not hold an honor from the King. Franklin later was called Esquire in the US and he may have been given that honorific for several reasons.

  • Franklin later was President of the State of Pennsylvania (an office analogous to Governor) for three years from 1785, and could have been styled “Esquire” as result of this service.
  • Franklin is later referred to as Benjamin Franklin, Esq., in his capacity as Post Master General of the United States

So Esquire is not a title, not a title of nobility, was never legally conveyed to Franklin by anyone much less by the King. It is simply a term of respect to a person holding a responsible public position.


“In the first article of the Treaty most of the king’s claims to America are relinquished, except for his claim to continue receiving gold, silver and copper as gain for his business venture.” 


Well that actually does not contradict anything; it is correct. But he goes on to claim the money is in fact tribute to him as King. In any event the King also renounces any proprietary interest in the colonies as well:

Article 1st:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof… [emphasis added]


[Treaty] “Article 3 gives Americans the right to fish the waters around the United States and its rivers.”

Error: Let’s see:

Article 3d:
It is agreed that the People of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the Right to take Fish of every kind on the Grand Bank and on all the other Banks of Newfoundland, also in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and at all other Places in the Sea, where the Inhabitants of both Countries used at any time heretofore to fish. And also that the Inhabitants of the United States shall have Liberty to take Fish of every Kind on such Part of the Coast of Newfoundland as British Fishermen shall use, (but not to dry or cure the same on that Island) And also on the Coasts, Bays & Creeks of all other of his Brittanic Majesty’s Dominions in America; and that the American Fishermen shall have Liberty to dry and cure Fish in any of the unsettled Bays, Harbors, and Creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled, but so soon as the same or either of them shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said Fishermen to dry or cure Fish at such Settlement without a previous Agreement for that purpose with the Inhabitants, Proprietors, or Possessors of the Ground.
The Treaty of Paris

Error:   No place specifically named is in US waters.

But even if it did…how does letting Americans fish in American waters renounce our independence please?

The claim is made that this is because they are granting rights to the King. It doesn’t actually make sense since that would instead give the British those rights. But it doesn’t give the King any rights it gives his subjects certain rights. Not the same thing at all.

But fictionalist doesn’t really understand what the Treaty actually does say.

The Treaty gives Americans fishing rights in areas which are not part of the United States but are in the King’s remaining dominion of Canada; or gives equal rights to fishermen of both countries in areas they have traditionally fished. And yes that allows them to fish in American waters not specified. 

So the U.S. also grants fishing rights to British in the areas previously fished by them. This is a perfectly reasonable negotiated accommodation over fishing rights, both George and the U.S. got something. Fishermen could fish in either country’s waters regardless of their nationality. This is an international negotiation, not an unequal exchange. It certainly does not indicate that George ruled over the U.S.

That’s enough and really entirely too much on the Treaty of Paris. Without in depth examination of his other assertions some will perhaps be persuaded, but at this point I will not further pursue the lengthy and errant claims put forth by someone so clueless as to not be able to read the names of the parties to the treaty accurately.

However, the first Article of the Treaty is clear and unmistakable:

The King cedes ALL sovereign, territorial, and proprietary claims and rights.

2. “We  Just Look at The Treaty of 1794 to Prove We Are Still Under The King”

Next our erstwhile ficto-historian shows that the Treaty of 1794 makes, kept, or reflects us to be, under British Dominion.  He claims this is all because we really were not independent.

In fact, it was not a great deal for the U.S., as this explanation from the State Department web site shows; but it basically reflects the fact that our nation was small and weak and was squeezed between Britain and France as result of the Franco-British wars of the late 1790’s that later became the Napoleonic Wars…we made a not-so-great deal with Britain in order to keep out of a conflict with her.

As the Official explanation states:

“The resulting treaty addressed few U.S. interests, and ultimately granted Britain additional rights. The only concessions Jay obtained was a surrender of the northwestern posts (already agreed to in 1783) and a commercial treaty with Great Britain that granted the United States “most favored nation” status, but seriously restricted U.S. commercial access to the British West Indies. All other outstanding issues…were to be resolved by arbitration. Jay even conceded that the British could seize U.S. goods bound for France if they paid for them and could confiscate without payment French goods on American ships.”

Jay’s Treaty was immensely unpopular with the American public, but it squeaked through the Senate on a 20 to 10 vote on June 24, 1795. President Washington implemented the treaty in the face of popular disapproval, realizing that it was the price of peace with Great Britain and that it gave the United States valuable time to consolidate and rearm in the event of future conflict.

On the other hand this treaty certainly did not put us under British rule.

3. The War of 1812 and the 13th Amendment

Ficto-Historian next explains that the big problem after this was that the “13th Amendment” to the Constitution threatened the King’s reign because it would disqualify all of his henchmen (lawyers) from running the government and thus make America truly free.

Claimed Without Evidence:

 “The War of 1812 served several purposes. It delayed the passage of the 13th Amendment by Virginia, allowed the British to destroy the evidence of the first 12 states ratification of this Amendment, and it increased the national debt, which would coerce the Congress to reestablish the Bank Charter in 1816 after the Treaty of Ghent was ratified by the Senate in 1815.”

Error:  The Real 13th Amendment  passed in 1865 and ended slavery.

Error:  The “13th Amendment” referred to is:

“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”

It is not an Amendment at all; it is a proposed amendment that was never ratified, and discussed in detail at  

Error: If you read the blog at the link, you will see that not only was it never ratified, it would not have the effect the sovereigns claim: that is, to close down the courts and make all lawyers and judges lose citizenship and the right to hold office. It just wouldn’t do that.

The sovereigns assert that by becoming a lawyer and joining the bar one receives the title “Esquire” and that is a title that disqualifies and would remove citizenship under the proposed amendment. As noted above, Esquire is not a title of nobility though it might be an honor. But becoming a lawyer or a judge in the U.S. conveys no  “title of nobility or honor” under any law. And certainly no such honor would be from “any [foreign] Emperor, King, etc.” You don’t become an Esquire when you become a lawyer, no one gives you the right or the title or anything of the sort. It’s just a tradition, falling into disuse these days. Go ahead, show me a law that grants the title anywhere in the US.

(Did I mention Sovereign Citizens hate judges and lawyers? They REALLY hate judges and lawyers.I suppose it’s because their belief systems are usually demolished in courtrooms.)

Error: As noted in the link provided, the Amendment was not ratified at any time before during or after the war of 1812. The idea that the British burned Washington to hide something that didn’t happen and that they wouldn’t care about, is laughable. They didn’t even while winning the war think the US was or would become a colony. They couldn’t hold on to twenty five years earlier and Britain was in a long and deadly war with Napoleon and the U.S. was making that struggle awkward by insisting it had the right to do business with France and deliver goods there.

Also the citizenship of some sailors on US ships was ambiguous: British law did not allow anyone to lose their British nationality and so Brits who were naturalized as Americans were considered subjects of the King and the King needed more sailors. When they stopped US ships they removed and put into their Navy anyone who wasn’t an American in 1787 as covered by the Treaty of Paris.

The British didn’t want to fight us and divert resources; but in the end they did.

And yes, we basically lost the War of 1812 which still does not make us a British Colony.

4. All Property and Taxes belong to the King Because We Lost the Civil War

You are surprised to learn the United States LOST the Civil War, no? The United States was the North and they defeated the South. Well that’s my opinion.

The Fictionalist explains…

Claimed Without Evidence: The Civil War was not about slavery (nor presumably States’ Rights) but was about the right to own land or any property at all, free of the government’s ability to tax; and that, if the government can tax land or other property, you don’t really own it. Also all taxes are for the King.

The southern States were not fighting so much for the slave issue, but for the right to own property, any property. These property rights were granted by the king in the Treaty of 1783, knowing they would soon be forfeited by the American people through ignorance. Do you think you own your house? If you were to stop paying taxes, federal or state, you would soon find out that you were just being allowed to live and pay rent for this house. The rent being the taxes to the king, who supplied the benefit of commerce. A free man not under a monarch, democracy, dictatorship or socialist government, but is under a republican form of government would not and could not have his property taken (emphasis added). Why! The king’s tax would not and could not be levied. If the Americans had been paying attention the first 70 years to the subterfuge and corruption of the Constitution and government representatives, instead of chasing the money supplied by the king, the Conquest of this country during the Civil War could have been avoided.

Error: That is just a silly argument; a diversion from history.  The Southern States themselves said Northern efforts to end slavery and the preservation of the institution of slavery was at the core of their secession.

South Carolina:

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slave holding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes;and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection….

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

…. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state…


….Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove….


….We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

Error: The government can enFORCE laws, and seize property in doing so, subject to due process of law. And a fundamental power of every sovereign government is the ability to tax. If government has no money it cannot operate and so an attribute of sovereign government is the power to tax.

We can indeed live in a republic and in addition pay taxes of various sorts, including property tax.  (Interestingly,  US Federal Government does not have the power to tax private property in any State; that power is limited to the state governments.)

Conclusion: We are a British Colony??

And that pretty well sums up the concept; all government is actually the King’s and all taxes are for the King, even though money today doesn’t go to the King nor to Great Britain in any particular way, so when you pay property tax for the school district that’s because we are a British possession. And in fact the King basically owns your house.
Not so much….

And the Civil War was really about declaring tax independence from Britain despite the fact that the South tried to get the British to sign on as allies, and that we elect the people who determine our taxes as well as what they are used for. Your state could eliminate property taxes entirely if it wanted to. Well it could eliminate them not saying it would.

If indeed we are a British Colony, how is all that actually taking place?

How much money do we send to the Queen each year and how? How does the Queen rule us?

Actually sovereigns have one, most laughable example of the Queen allegedly ordering changes to Social Security.

It is as hilarious as the inability to read the first paragraph of the Treaty of Paris, because it is based first, on not recognizing that Britain has a program called “Social Security”  which is what the ‘Queen” (The Parliament) is referring to in the document they proffer ( ; and second, he doesn’t know that we have an agreement with Britain that people who earn money and contribute to retirement systems in both countries can coordinate those contributions to get a single pension from one or the other  and here is that agreement… (

And there I think we shall let the matter rest, this is way too much analysis than his propositions deserve already…


=                                       More Blogs by Philipem 1000                                       =

Sovereign Citizens and Fellow Travelers

=                                                          The Law                                                          =
Sources Of Law and Authority

Are Statutes Laws?  What About Regulations ?

Strawman Theory and CAPITAL Letters

A collection of court cases
  quoted regularly in response to sovereign citizen
ideas and challenges to the driver license laws.

=                                                  The US and the States                                                =

Do You Need a License to Drive ?

The United States Is A Corporation

(Or If You Prefer, It Can Be An Elephant )

The US Became Bankrupt in 1933 &

Federal Reserve Notes are Not Legal Currency

The United States is still a British Colony

There are Three United States

=                                                 The Courts                                                     =

A Lost 13th Amendment
Removes all Legitimacy from Courts

All US Courts hear only Admiralty Cases

US Courts are Administrative, Not Judicial

All Lawyers take a Secret Oath to Hide ‘The TRUTH

4 thoughts on “Is The U.S. Is Still a British Colony?”

    1. Just noticed this one. Well I am not going to dive in and research it. Texas did in fact ask to join the Union and there was an enabling act passed and Texas sent reps and senators to congress. Texas seceded in 1861 which would not have been done if it was not in the union in the first place, and then Texas later was reconstructed and again began sending representatives, casting vites for president and all manner of things that only a State can do.
      On March 30, 1870, the United States Congress readmitted Texas into the Union, although Texas did not meet all the formal requirements for readmission. Like other Southern states, by the late 1870s white Democrats regained control, often with a mix of intimidation and terrorism by paramilitary groups operating for the Democratic Party. They passed a new constitution in 1876 that segregated schools and established a poll tax to support them, but it was not originally required for voting.
      [Constitution of 1876 from the Handbook of Texas Online, accessed April 12, 2008]

      The readmission documents are found at
      This one conclusively answers any idea that Texas is not a state:
      “Be it ordained by the people of Texas in Convention assembled, That we acknowledge the supremacy of the Constitution of the United States, and the laws passed in pursuance thereof; and that an Ordinance adopted by a former Convention of the people of Texas on the 1st day of February, A.D. 1861, entitled “An Ordinance to Dissolve the Union between the State of Texas and the other States, united under the compact styled ‘Constitution of the United States of America,'” be and the same is hereby declared null and void; and the right heretofore claimed by the State of Texas to secede from the Union, is hereby distinctly renounced. Passed 15th March, 1866.”

      The Constitution of the State of Texas, as Amended by the Delegates in Convention Assembled, Austin, 1866. Austin: Printed at the Southern Intelligencer Office, 1866, p. 32.

  1. Hey Phil, I had to come back to visit your site. I have a new claim that some sovereign citizens came up with… The United States is a British Colony because they adopted and continue to use the Common Law of England.

    1. Well no, sorry. First not every state actually uses common law. Second, let me show you an example of what actually was done, this is Florida Law:
      2.01 Common law and certain statutes declared in force.—The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state.

      Now all that says is that the laws, insofar as they are applicable and not overridden by any subsequent law passed by Florida, are in effect. To the extent they contravene the Constitution they are inapplicable thus not subject to British Sovereignty. The Treaty of Paris transferred sovereignty from the Crown of England. Here is the Supreme Court just four years after the Constitution went into effect:

      Chief Justice John Jay:

      “From the Crown of Great Britain, the sovereignty of their country passed to the people of it… the people nevertheless continued to consider themselves, in a national point of view, as one people; and they continued without interruption to manage their national concerns accordingly; afterwards, in the hurry of the war and in the warmth of mutual confidence, they made a Confederation of the States the basis of a general government. Experience disappointed the expectations they had formed from it, and then the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution…and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves… Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides”

      Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)

      And other theories that we are still a colony are even wackier:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.