Sovereign Citizen Movement

[Cartmann99]

 

If you are unfamiliar with sovereign citizens, here's an explanation from the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Quote

Sovereign citizens believe that they – not judges, juries, law enforcement or elected officials – should decide which laws to obey and which to ignore. Most sovereign citizens also don’t believe they should have to pay taxes. They clog up the courts with indecipherable filings and, when cornered, many of them lash out, retaliating through acts of paper terrorism and, in the most extreme cases, acts of deadly violence – usually directed against government officials. In May 2010, for example, a father-son team of sovereigns murdered two police officers with an assault rifle when they were pulled over on the interstate while traveling through West Memphis, Arkansas.

The roots of the movement are racist and antisemitic. It was founded by William Potter Gale, former member of the John Birch Society. Potter formed a group of antigovernment Christian Identity adherents who mistrusted state and federal officials. They believed that non-white people were not human, and that Jews possessed a satanic plot to take over the world. They identified themselves as Posse Comitatus, which is Latin for “power of the county” and centered around the idea that county sheriffs are the highest governmental authority.

Posse Comitatus is based on the Sheriffs Act of 1887, which allowed sheriffs to form a posse that would assist them in hunting down and arresting criminals. Potter’s posse believed they served under common law (laws based on their interpretation of the Bible), rather than civil law (legitimate laws formed by the American legal system).

The activities of Potter’s Posse, many of them crimes, included a refusal to pay taxes, filing property liens and committing violence against public officials. These actions, which were established by Gale’s group, have become customary in today’s sovereign citizens movement. What has changed since the movement’s inception is the white supremacist ideology that initially dominated it. Contemporary sovereign citizens hold varying racial ideologies and include a variety of people, most commonly white and African American.

This second quote from SPLC explains the conspiracy theory that fuels American sovereign citizens:

Quote

The contemporary sovereign belief system is based on a decades-old conspiracy theory. Sovereigns believe that the American government set up by the founding fathers, under a common-law legal system, was secretly replaced. They think the replacement government swapped common law for admiralty law, which is the law of the sea and international commerce.

Some sovereigns believe this perfidious change occurred during the Civil War, while others blame the events of 1933, when the U.S. abandoned the gold standard. Either way, they stake their lives and livelihoods on the idea that U.S. judges and lawyers, who they believe are foreign agents, know about this hidden government takeover but argue against it, denying the sovereigns’ motions and filings out of treasonous loyalty to hidden and malevolent government forces.

Most sovereign citizens base their actions on a bogus U.S. history lesson, which goes as follows: Since 1933, the U.S. dollar has been backed not by gold, but by the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. government. (In fact, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ended private ownership of gold in large amounts in 1933; Governments could still sell gold for dollars to the U.S. Treasury for a fixed amount after that, until that practice was ended by President Richard Nixon in 1971).)

According to sovereign citizen researchers, the government has pledged its citizenry as collateral, by selling their future earning capabilities to foreign investors, effectively enslaving all Americans. This sale, they claim, takes place at birth. When a baby is born in the U.S., a birth certificate is issued, and the hospital usually requires the parents to apply for a Social Security number. Sovereigns say that the government then uses that birth certificate to set up a corporate trust in the baby’s name – a secret Treasury account – which it funds with amounts ranging from $600,000 to $20 million, depending on the particular variant of the sovereign belief system. By setting up this Treasury Direct Account (TDA), every newborn’s rights are split between those held by the flesh-and-blood baby and the ones assigned to his or her corporate shell account.

Sovereigns citizens believe the evidence for their theory is found on the birth certificate itself. Since most certificates use all capital letters to spell out a baby’s name, JOHN DOE, for example, is actually the name of the corporate shell identity, also called a “straw man,” while John Doe is the baby’s “real,” flesh-and-blood name. As the child grows older, most of his legal documents will utilize capital letters, which means that his state-issued driver's license, his marriage license, his car registration, his criminal court records, his cable TV bill and his correspondence from the IRS all will pertain to his corporate shell identity, not his real, sovereign identity.

To separate from their corporate shell, sovereign citizens use a series of convoluted steps, often shared with them by more veteran sovereigns. This can include actions such as filing documentation with their secretary of state’s office declaring themselves sovereign, signing it with red blood or ink thumbprints, then having their new sovereign identity published in the newspaper.

To tap into the secret Treasury account, they believe exists they file a series of complex, legal-sounding documents. For decades, sovereigns have attempted to perfect the process by packaging and promoting different combinations of forms and paperwork. The only touted success stories are from sovereigns who were in fact committing fraud against the government or private companies by creating counterfeit or fraudulent and fictitious documents. These sovereigns are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

 

[CrazyCatLady]

When I worked in prisons I encountered many people who believed this. No amount of logic persuaded them. It was sad because they were clearly being preyed on by people who would "help" them with the paperwork...for a fee.

 

Edited February 11, 2022 by samurai_sarah
Signature removed

[Ozlsn]

The "convoys" in Australia, Canada and other places are rife with these people. My personal attitude has hardened to the point of if you're claiming Sovereign citizenship you should be detained until it can be ascertained whether you are legally in the country.  If you don't want to pay taxes, ok, you pay tolls to use all infrastructure. Citizenship comes with responsibility, and yes you can choose to disobey bad laws - and in some cases I actively support that - but wanting all the rights with none of the responsibilities pisses me off.  It's believing in a magical fairytale where they're suddenly rich and important - grow up.

[Howl]

The occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge by the Bundy brothers Jan 2, 2016 – Feb 11, 2016 attracted numerous Sovereign Citizens. 

I was never sure if the Bundys (father and sons) and LaVoy Finicum were 100% sovereign citizens or were more Sagebrush Rebellion types. Cliven Bundy supports the Sovereign Citizens movement, but don't think he identifies as one. 

I'd agree that sovereign citizens are incredibly dangerous.  They answer to no one and some are known to be violent and have murdered more than one police man. 

In the most absolute literal sense, they truly believe that the rules instituted by government (Federal or state) do not apply to them. 

Even worse, there are an incredibly number of constitutional sheriffs in the country.   Bleeech. 

Edited February 13, 2022 by Howl

[Katzchen24]

This came up in a friend's FB feed and I'm still not 100% sure this isn't some kind of prank. It's actually a headline from two years ago, but still, shows we have our fair share of sovereign citizen wackjobs.

Bizarre scenes in tiny WA town as sovereign nation attempts to overthrow government

*WA for Western Australia, not Washington....

Edited March 14, 2022 by Katzchen24
I didn't mention the story was from Australia, not the US

[47of74]

I'm YouTube binging watching idiots go down the sovereign citizen rabbit hole again.  Along with the return of P. Barnes, dealing with this asshole.

What dumb fuck doesn't realize is that while the courts don't write laws, they do have authority to set the rules for inside judicial branch facilities.   Dumb fuck also doesn't realize people are not laughing with him.

I'm now working my way through this video.

Spoiler

 

It's a long one.  A lot of it deals with the deceased sov cit's mother filing an affidavit full of sov cit bullshit and the lawyer tearing it apart.  I would love to turn my law school professors - especially my writing professors - loose on her bullshit.

[47of74]

I had a floating law clerk interview today helping several judges with the probate and mental health calendars.  So I might be unlucky enough to get some first hand experience with sovereign citizens in court.  (I do want the law clerk job). 

Edited March 17, 2023 by 47of74

[47of74]

Dr. Todd Grande analyzed the shooting of a sovereign citizen in Utah 

He talked about some of the personality traits these people often share.  Yeah they share quite a few with a hopefully soon to be indicted fuck face. Narcissism, delusions of grandeur, etc. 

[Ozlsn]

This was a development I wasn't aware of - crosses into the J6 mentality but has roots here apparently.

I don't understand what these people think they will gain by "breaking" the government. They have no capacity to build, do they want to live in rural Afghanistan? 

[Katzchen24]

47 minutes ago, Ozlsn said:

This was a development I wasn't aware of - crosses into the J6 mentality but has roots here apparently.

I don't understand what these people think they will gain by "breaking" the government. They have no capacity to build, do they want to live in rural Afghanistan? 

The narcissism aspect of SovCit must play a big role here. They have no care or concern for anyone except themselves. The idea of existing as part of a community of people who care for each other is totally foreign to them. Even more so if even once someone says “no” to them. 
Wrap ‘em up with a fluffy blankie of misogyny and all the phobias and there they are, a big bunch of babies who want to control everyone else’s toys. 

[Dandruff]

5 hours ago, Ozlsn said:

This was a development I wasn't aware of - crosses into the J6 mentality but has roots here apparently.

I don't understand what these people think they will gain by "breaking" the government. They have no capacity to build, do they want to live in rural Afghanistan? 

Attacking power grids prevents people from effectively communicating, travelling, eating, and obtaining medical care.  Chaos may erupt if power isn't restored within a reasonable period of time.  I believe domestic terrorists view (and do) this in the hopes of being able to step in and run things their way while folks are hurting and somewhat helpless.

I think some of these asshats would be more than happy to live in a rural Afghanistan-type environment, if they're the ones in charge.

[Ozlsn]

4 hours ago, Dandruff said:

I think some of these asshats would be more than happy to live in a rural Afghanistan-type environment, if they're the ones in charge

I'm not sure they've really thought it through. They assume that the roads will still be OK, that they'll be able to get their supplies etc. I agree they're totally up for being in charge, but they still think someone *waves hands vaguely* will keep things going.

[Dandruff]

12 hours ago, Ozlsn said:

I'm not sure they've really thought it through. They assume that the roads will still be OK, that they'll be able to get their supplies etc. I agree they're totally up for being in charge, but they still think someone *waves hands vaguely* will keep things going.

I also doubt they've thought it fully through, but believe these people and perhaps associated militia groups have been stockpiling food, medicine, weapons, generators, walkie-talkies, batteries, etc for a long time.  Some may have partial plans/organization for controlling the general population if things get bad enough (which they will if power stays off, imo, for more than a few weeks).  Some may just want to watch themselves thrive while causing what they consider an enemy population to suffer.

[fraurosena]

On 6/14/2023 at 11:01 PM, Dandruff said:

Some may just want to watch themselves thrive while causing what they consider an enemy population to suffer.

Even in this case, they are still not looking at the whole picture. Just imagine that, for whatever reason, the power grid and infrastructure of the whole country goes down (hard to imagine for all 50 states at once, but let’s go with this thought for argument’s sake). Nobody has access to power, nobody can travel (no, not even the rich could fly their private planes). The US has become a gigantic disaster zone. 
Does anyone believe that the rest of the world would just sit idly by, and do nothing? Even if there were no altruistic intentions (which for all my powers of imagination I can’t find myself to believe) there are a great many reasons for the rest of the world to step in. Re-stabilizing world economy would be the better of them; taking over the country and its military might would be one of the worst.
But in no scenario will SovCit’s thrive in the manner they think they will. 

[Dandruff]

31 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Even in this case, they are still not looking at the whole picture. Just imagine that, for whatever reason, the power grid and infrastructure of the whole country goes down (hard to imagine for all 50 states at once, but let’s go with this thought for argument’s sake). Nobody has access to power, nobody can travel (no, not even the rich could fly their private planes). The US has become a gigantic disaster zone. 
Does anyone believe that the rest of the world would just sit idly by, and do nothing? Even if there were no altruistic intentions (which for all my powers of imagination I can’t find myself to believe) there are a great many reasons for the rest of the world to step in. Re-stabilizing world economy would be the better of them; taking over the country and its military might would be one of the worst.
But in no scenario will SovCit’s thrive in the manner they think they will. 

I don't think they need to be looking at the whole picture in order to inflict damage.  

I also don't envision any likely scenario where the whole country goes down hard.  What I believe is far more probable are pockets of structural failures followed by sovereign/militia types going in to "help" and/or try to organize locally...politely or not.  If the pattern continued (very hypothetical - I'd be surprised if they could get their acts that together) it could lead to more widespread disruption.  By the time things got bad enough for other countries to step in - assuming they would choose to step in and could actually get in - there could be an awful lot of mopping up to do and I expect it would be difficult.  Whether or not things got that bad, though, the sovereigns/militias would have done some harm and had a chance to practice their survival skills and other techniques. 

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, Dandruff said:

I don't think they need to be looking at the whole picture in order to inflict damage.  

I also don't envision any likely scenario where the whole country goes down hard.  What I believe is far more probable are pockets of structural failures followed by sovereign/militia types going in to "help" and/or try to organize locally...politely or not.  If the pattern continued (very hypothetical - I'd be surprised if they could get their acts that together) it could lead to more widespread disruption.  By the time things got bad enough for other countries to step in - assuming they would choose to step in and could actually get in - there could be an awful lot of mopping up to do and I expect it would be difficult.  Whether or not things got that bad, though, the sovereigns/militias would have done some harm and had a chance to practice their survival skills and other techniques. 

True. In reality, they won't be able to achieve what they think they can, but of course you are right in that they can inflict a world of hurt to some area's. However, in that case, wouldn't the rest of the US (i.e. the federal government) step in? Whichever way we hypothetically slice it, they won't actually be able to irreparable harm. 

That being said, the harm thay could potentially inflict would still cause an enormous humanitarian crisis, and shouldn't be offhandedly discounted.

Edited June 16, 2023 by fraurosena

[Ozlsn]

One of the weirdest exchanges I've read recently started from Trump saying he would remove the American-born citizenship amendment. A commenter suggested if removing/rewording amendments was going to happen then the 2nd Amendment could get tightened up, to which a third person responded ongoing the lines of "oh and then we'll be invaded because the civilian population will be defenseless".

Seriously, they think they're the last line of defence against outside invasion despite having one of the largest and best equipped armies on the planet.

Sure Bubba.