Some quick googling suggests it refers to people who say that they belong to their own country, and therefore don't have to obey the laws of the country they're in, but that just seems too crazy to be common, and it comes up too frequently on this subreddit to be something that absurd.
Posted Oct 31, 2013, 12:57 PM UTC
I posted in another thread but I'll mention this again here. I have a personal friend who got mixed up with this. He started driving around without insurance, without registration, and so on. At some point he was stopped, and ticketed with ... not having insurance or registration.
However, he threw the ticket in the garbage because "sovereign citizen," the rules just don't apply.
A little while later, he gets pulled over again, but this time he gets arrested. He goes to court and tries to say his magic words and the judge sentences him to a short time in jail. He is then apprehended to be transfered to jail. All the while screaming this stupid shit about how they can't, because they have no authority!
At which point the walls came crashing down and he threatened to kill himself, and was actually relieved of jail time and put in a mental ward instead (which, he said, was actually way worse).
Sovereign Citizens are lunatics and I would consider it more like a cult. It has absolutely no bearing on real jurisprudence. There are some people in this thread who pop up on a regular basis claiming that SC "works." Please, go violate a law of your choice in front of a police officer and say your magic incantations and save us all the trouble of hearing about your idiocy further.
[deleted]
You're right, but for completely the wrong reasons.
Had he been walking and asked for ID by a police officer for no reason (I'm in Canada, FYI), he can refuse ID because he has no legal obligation to provide one. That is the law. It has nothing to do with "corporate status" or the other malarkey you are throwing out.
Here's the funny part though. Had one been arrested for failure to ID regardless of the law, and it wasn't thrown out by the prosecutor, any junior criminal defence lawyer would laugh and say, oh I just need to quote R v Honoroski 2003 ABPC and be on our way. Hell, we can probably sue for damages as well.
BUT, if the ass hat gets no lawyer and walks into court and starts refusing to ID himself then and making all sorts of crap like we saw in the other video, then he might very well lose the case or even be found in contempt.
[deleted]
If you aren't breaking the law, it doesn't matter if you're walking around thinking you are a sovereign citizen or not, you're not breaking the law, so you're not going to encounter state interference.
This doesn't make your claims correct. It's very much similar to any other pseudo-science, that is, I can claim for example, my daily consumption of coffee has prevented me with getting cancer because I don't have cancer. The onus is not on others to provide evidence that I'm wrong, the onus is on me to provide evidence that coffee does in fact prevent cancer.
You are essentially making a similar claim, the claim that your knowledge of being a "sovereign citizen" or certain magic legal incantations has made you succeed in avoiding state interference, but this is not logical. It does not follow, unless you can cite a specific example where your methods specifically extracted you from interference and whereas NO OTHER METHOD would have succeeded.
"These people" LOL... Distancing and diminutive language.
[deleted]
Well if you assault someone that would be a violation of common law which SC supposedly follow.
Its like saying anarchists believe that rape and murder is ok.
Most of these fringe people's arguments are against government control over consensual interactions and traveling freely without being hassled by tax collectors.
I'm not a SC or an anarchist but I'm a lot closer to them than statists.
I'd just like to point out how you're friends "magical incantations" are silly and stupid and won't help him
but when the magical incantations come from a judge you think they hold water somehow.
can you explain this?
and for the record I do not consider myself to be a citizen of any nation. that does not mean I am immune to bullets or handcuffs so I act accordingly.
however I would like to point out that authority or "jurisdiction" that is only excersized through force is no more legitimate than your friends magic incantations.
It's called the "Social Contract"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
And it's great that you don't consider yourself a citizen of any country. I consider myself a hermaphroditic unicorn, but that doesn't make it true.
great. I never signed and/or agreed to any "social contract" so try again.
And it's great that you don't consider yourself a citizen of any country. I consider myself a hermaphroditic unicorn, but that doesn't make it true.
you can consider yourself an american as well or Norwegian, but that doesn't make it true.
also pretty dumb comparison there since hermaphrodite and unicorn are concrete terms with physical meaning.
while borders of nations are simply imaginary and fluid and change constantly. do you consider yourself british? ya know since america was originally a british colony?
You just called a unicorn a "concrete term with physical meaning"
What.
Anyway, you don't need to "sign" the "social contract." You should read one of any of the philosophers on the page I linked. It's not like hundreds, if not millions of people have pondered the questions of authority, governance, and society before you did.
There is all sorts of great theories on how it all works! Why it works, where authority is derived, and methods to maintain the most equitable and balanced societies.
Saying "the rules don't apply to me because it's all imaginary!" is not really a good one though.
Sample size of one does not give your comments much grounding.
"Sovereign citizens are lunatics" blanket assertion that does not represent a fairly diverse community. It's the same as saying "all cops are pigs," or "all blacks are bad."
"No bearing on real Jurisprudence" Jurisprudence within the context of our democracies around the world, on closer examination, holds no real moral foundation it is a pragmatic construction only that deserves questioning.
I would agree with you that sovereign citizens are not pragmatic and often act without respect to consequences, but your conclusions have not considered that there are in fact aspects of their argument that holds water.
There are no aspects of their arguments that hold water. Not a single one. Here is my evidence:
http://www2.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/qb/Family/2012/2012abqb0571ed1.pdf
There are hundreds of court cases referenced in that document. It covers every absurd argument, cases in which they have been brought up, and how they were eviscerated them most pointedly. It is pseudo-legal nonsense and has no basis. No basis at all.
First thing you need to be nuts. Go from there.
Would you say that organizations that have collectively been responsible for the wholesale murder of hundreds of millions of people over the last 100 years have any moral authority?
Let me ask you this, did you use milk on your cereal this morning? Well???
Actually lactose intolerant so.... Nope.
Yeah, anyone who decides that he is not subject to the laws of the nation he's in is delusional. It's not about "rights," per se, it's about force. The nation that claims sovereignty over that territory does so by force of arms. Unless the "sovereign citizen" is able to overthrow the government forces, then he's just claiming something that he wishes was true.
I think they're making these claims based more on principles more than they are based on reality
I've attempted to read some the "sovereign citizen" legal theories, along with claims of winning cases in court. Yet every time I actually find such a court case it's won due to their accuser failing to show.
Yes, these people are are nuts, and this is coming from a very strong pro rights person. Some of the specific legal claims of sovereign citizens will often start out like there's an interesting legal point, but then immediately devolve into bare claims. I've tried and I can't muster a cohesive description of them.
The term 'sovereign citizen' is an oxymoron, you can't be sovereign and a citizen. It's a term government and police use to label anyone who questions their authority or jurisdiction.
And what would your definition of 'sovereign" be, in this context?
"Sovereignty means having supreme dominion over your realm - That you are the king of your own territory and are Governed by the Laws of God, not the laws of bankrupt corporations and their security guards."
Thought that was a pretty good way to describe sovereignty... It's the idea that you shouldn't hurt anyone, take anyone's property, or impede on anyone else's right to happiness (common law).
Instead we live in a society that has thousands upon thousands of insanely detailed statutes and acts (usually drawn up by highly corrupted criminals) that are mostly used for revenue generation, intimidation, and control.
It's an umbrella term used by cops, that thanks to a few extremists, blanket anyone who stands up for their rights as a Sovereign Citizen and therefore dangerous.
It's just a softer term they use instead of "domestic terrorist".
anyone who stands up for their rights as a Sovereign Citizen
Can you elaborate on these rights? Do you consider everyone to be a sovereign citizen, or does it require claiming to be one? Is that the only condition?
I think he's implying that many cops would use the phrase "sovereign citizen" incorrectly as a blanket descriptor of folks like us. They're seen (pretty much correctly) as a crazy fringe group, and by giving that title to anybody standing up for their rights, it helps the cop to avoid the cognitive dissonance of "I need to respect people's rights" vs "this guy is a crazypants loony bird who thinks the law doesn't apply to them."
I don't consider anyone anything. It's what they consider when you stand up for your rights and say things like "Am I free to go? I'm not required to answer that etc."
Ah, I parsed your sentence incorrectly. I thought you said "anyone who stands up for [their rights as a Sovereign Citizen]", but you said the cops "blanket [anyone who stands up for their rights] as [a Sovereign Citizen]". My bad.
Why also do sovereign citizens always ask cops if they are "operating under their oath"?
[deleted]
probably because cops violate the fuck out of the constitution... obviously the cop were telling a lie when they swore to uphold it
The first sentence of this article reads: "The strange subculture of the sovereign citizens movement".. Truly an objective and unbiased opinion worth reading, right?
Strange: unusual or surprising in a way that's most don't immediately understand
subculture: a cultural group within a larger culture, often having beliefs or interests at variance with those of the larger culture.
Sounds about as objective as it can be.... how do those descriptions not fit the sovereign citizens movement?
Read up on "common law", UCC 1.207 & UCC 1.308, Your fictitious corporation birth certificate, and start youtubing "Sovereign in court". Expect MANY people to yell and scream that 'you are crazy' and 'this never works'. The loud ones are usually shills for the establishment or "educated" persons who are incapable of accepting new information and thinking for themselves (since they already have all the answers). Your common law rights subercede any corporate jurisdiction. No victim, no crime. There are multiple videos online proving how it works. Here is a more famous one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzjv20sC5CY
There are multiple videos online proving how it works.
There are multiple videos online proving how it works that some people think it might work.
In the video I posted: The citizen claims common law and sovereignty and the judge reacts by leaving the courtroom, case dismissed. I'd say that's a pretty good example of not only "some people thinking it might work" AND it IN FACT working.
In the video the SC refuses to give any name other than "Keith" and after a few minutes of the judge patiently trying to get him to say who he is, the judge recesses court and leaves.
The SC then tells people around him that the case has been dismissed with cause and wanders off camera. No one else ever agreed with him, certainly there's nothing in the video to show the court recognizing dismissal and I fully expect the jurisdiction did not consider the matter dismissed.
In any case, the video is incomplete at best since we don't know what happened after the recess.
Lets discuss what the video contains and not some distraction of 'what it's missing' or 'how short it is. What I saw in the video: If the judge/court had retained any authority in this matter the bailiffs would have removed Keith from the court upon order. Instead they act as Peace Officers and recognize Keith's authority as an officer of the court and do nothing when the Judge demands it. Keith identified himself within the scope of the law by stating who he was, what his family clan name was, and the fact that he was the executor of the account - all without ever stating he was the fictitious corporation (i.e. the name "KEITH THOMPSON") and therefore never waiving his rights as a citizen, sovereign of the court he was standing in. The judge realizes he has no authority (the judge isn't going to remove the man himself) and then leaves. In maritime law (what this corporate court is based on) he's just abandoned the court, and in the eye's of common law any court official (as Keith declared he was and verified by the bailiffs not ejecting him) can continue the case. He then dismisses the case with cause and prejudice. The ruling stands, hence why the bailiffs were all smiling at him while he walked out a (still) free and sovereign man. The icing on the cake.. The Judge bowed to Keith as he left the court!
The man in that video is Wilfred Keith Thompson, and was also charged in 2012 for burglary. Suprisingly, despite his "Sovereign Citizen," he was refused bail for being uncooperative. AMAZING HOW WELL THIS WORKS!
"Thompson, Trevor De Block, 39, of Windsor and Isaac Emesowum, 24, of Waterloo, were each charged Saturday with break, enter and theft. The charges relate to a police investigation into an incident at a vacant residence on Dalebrook Place in Guelph’s north end.
Thompson and DeBlock were denied bail."
How do common law rights trump codified law if society is unwilling to recognize elements of the former? Natural lawyers can strenuously maintain a position, but it won't do anyone much good from a jail cell.
[deleted]
The key is to never enter a courtroom.
As opposed to what? Hanging about in the hallway outside, or standing on the courthouse lawn, or just ignoring the summons?
That's inviting a default judgment against you.
[deleted]
I've yet to see a single argument in support of sovereign citizenry that holds water.
In my experience, they're a collection of wishful thinking crackpots who have the idea that they can sort of shrug off the authority of the government using various kinds of legal mumbo-jumbo.
TL;DR: It is crazy.
EDIT: spelling
Going to hijack the top comment to post this:
http://www2.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/qb/Family/2012/2012abqb0571ed1.pdf
180 page court document that shreds every single argument these people make. Enjoy.
Link appears to be dead? Is there a mirror?
Yes. http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html
Does the government have any actual moral authority?
I don't have enough data to opine on this question.
Remove the word moral and it becomes easier to understand.
[deleted]
See ^^ ??
This supports what I'm taking about. AquilonisOccidente approaches this topic asking about reality and the authority of thoughts.
If you use this approach in courtroom, you're going to honk off the judge and tempt him to appoint counsel for you, or slap you with a contempt charge, or both.
[deleted]
OK, but insofar as you never enter a courtroom, your philosophy does not appear to be something that is practised in a way that is objectively different from the practices of someone that isn't practicing your philosophy. That is, as far as I can tell, the only time an objective difference appears is in a courtroom.
If that's not so, by all means, illuminate us. If it is so, then insofar as you never enter a courtroom, the difference is not objectively detectable, and we'll never see it, yes?
The people with the guns have the authority if you agree with it or not
The people with power to back up their rules have the authority weather your agree with it or not.
Power, and the will to use it...