The Duty of Transparent Change

     As one of the primary founders of the House of Markus Fellowship association, it was always our intention to build a resource of law that taught people little known information about our nation's system of law. At the core of our principles is and always will be truth. This means that we are not afraid to admit when we were wrong or afraid to change course and follow paths that are unknown to us in search of absolute truths to ensure protection and freedoms for our members and society at large. Authenticity being another major tenet, I have always presented myself to our members as I am without any hidden agenda or shadow personality. I always make myself seen as transparency is a duty not a choice for a steward of a free association of people. With that said, the House of Markus Fellowship philosophy regarding the system and government is making a substantial shift. 

What This Means Exactly

     Those that have followed my work for many years know that I have been down many many roads in what I call the freedom movement starting back in 2009. I have not only researched but implemented many pseudo legal processes many of you might know by name such as:

• Status Correction (American National) (2010)
• Secured Party Creditor (UCC-1) (2010)
• Republic for the United States of America/State Assemblies (The Restore America Plan) (2010-2011)
• Living Beneficiary (Seal of St. Peter/One Global Estate Trust) (2012-13)
• Executor of the Estate (2012-13)
• Exclusive Equity (2014-2015) 
• Birth Certificate Authentication (2014-2015)
• Common Law Trust (Birth Certificate assignment) (2015)
• Debt Discharge (various methods) (2016-2019)
• 508(c)(1)(A) creation, operation & protection (2018-present)
• Private Member Association  creation, operation & protection (2021-present)

and others I may be forgetting at the time I am authoring this article. These processes and groups I attended always led me to deep research. Thousands of hours have gone into research and study while actual in court experience was taking place contemporaneously. Research, study and processes are one thing, but testing their effectiveness in court rooms is where the rubber meets the road. 

     With every page and sentence I read, hour after hour, day after day, month after month, year after year, I felt I was getting closer to figuring out that one hidden secret to birth/naturalization registration that would remove the government's authority to apply its debt, rules, and regulations against my will. But somehow, every time I tested these straw man theories and processes in courts, I was met with either minimal dismissals in inferior courts such as traffic court, or a complete hammering by the system. Never did I see one single 'you-unlocked-the-secret' type response from any court or agency. However, what I saw from the little battles I won taught me more and more about what it is that was actually working rather than what I 'thought and believed' was working.

The Philosophy Shift

      As I began working on two family law cases earlier this year in March of 2025, I started using AI more and more. By the time August rolled around, I realized it was lying to me (for more on that visit this Article in our Blog and comment in the Community Forum Post Here). After near fatal filings in these cases, I quickly retrained AI and tuned it up with prompts that barred any sovereign citizen theories that were not absolutely 100% provable in courts. This means there MUST be case law, records, testimony, and other evidences to back up the theory. If not, what good are all of these theories anyway when ultimately all roads lead to court. That's when we started seeing promise in these cases. Not with equity, legal person, trust, trade name, commerce theories, but with actual due process statutes and case law.

     And with that, I began trying my hardest using my newly tuned accurate AI to prove the birth/naturalization debtor theory, and many other theories I have taught for years, useful in court. To both my dismay and excitement, they appear to be about 98% invalid in my estimation. However, the 2% I did find to be valid, is seriously potent backed by decades of well established case law, statutory and constitutional law winnable in court. My philosophy is no longer "the Government is screwing us in a secret commercial contract environment" that we can exit from. It is now, "the Government cannot negate due process protections merely by identity or license". I also still maintain private unregistered property and unincorporated organizations as well protected from public overreach in the private domain.

How This Changes HoMF Teachings

     From here on out, I will only be using solid legal facts and well established law provable by SCOTUS, Federal Court and state Supreme Court case law. I will also start creating education centered around how to perform court procedures, appearances, etc. so people have an idea of what to do with their legal situations. Objection and challenge of personal, subject matter and sometimes territorial jurisdiction will always be front and center in any legal matter. For lower traffic, tax, municipal courts, the argument of bias will be a focus as well as FOIA requests for proofs of claim. Bias is typically formed if the municipality uses fines, fees, and penalties to pay for its court personnel and operations. It is well established that the case would need to be immediately removed to a higher non-biased court of record. However, don't get caught on that one premise in this article. That's just one of a multi pronged approach that includes jurisdictional objections and challenges.

     The House of Markus Fellowship wishes its members to be sophisticated and savvy, not throwing out wild improvable theories. The Constitution still has its place when properly brought into a case as a sound legal argument. Holding officials accountable for misdeeds is a narrow path that seldom bears fruit unless the official clearly acted without statutory authority. Many social media content creators and influencers feel it is easy to hold officials accountable because the officials follow statutory law. This is not the case. These creators and influencers continuously misinterpret the Constitution, statutes and case law often using quotes that do not exist in the case. They take snippets of verbiage out of a case that is usually totally irrelevant to the legal fact they are asserting. Most of the time the snippets are not even from the case opinion which anything other than the court's opinion is not case law. With that said, it's more probable to hold officials accountable when we have clearly defined and stated the law which they MUST follow on the record. 

     From this day forward, the House of Markus Fellowship continues the journey in the same direction on a new path. One that will lead to higher elevations for the benefit of all who join us along the way!

~ Robert Michael