Information icon.svg Our policy on articles on living people is under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

Talk:Sovereign citizen

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon pseudolaw.svg

This Pseudolaw related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png


This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Note about the "class bias" in the article - I think that is wrong[edit]

A LEO said that the "sovereign citizens" only seem to squat in "million dollar homes". The article note this is "class bias". I doubt it. It seems that he wa just pointing out that their interpretation of the law is inevitably tied to their self-interest. They will inevitably "discover" the law "allows" them expensive toys for nothing,— Unsigned, by: 87.69.37.238 / talk 11:17, 14 October 2016‎

outlawry[edit]

Hi!

should we add a section on outlawry - the historical legal status in which the law did not apply to you - and so you could be killed without legal consequence?96.37.80.50 (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Broke / Woke[edit]

https://twitter.com/amozu16/status/929744100500307968

Tired: I won't pay this, I'm a sovereign citizen

Wired: I won't pay this, I'm a Soviet citizen

https://www.rt.com/business/409339-soviet-union-cizitens-bank-loan

Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 18:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Comparison with other ideas of Sovereignty[edit]

The contrast with the UK is incorrect. Sovereignty is split between the Crown and Parliament, with Parliament having the majority (There are complications around the Human Rights Act, since in the British constitution it is not possible for a court to strike down legislation). — Unsigned, by: 86.173.203.212 / talk 20:27, 27 February 2018

Debunking article[edit]

I've watched plenty of videos from SovCit traffic stops, where they scream about 'travelling not driving', 'traffic law is not crime', quoting case laws and generally acting like they know some secret knowledge. I was wondering if people with actual understanding of the subject could compile an article that goes through all those little points, debunking them one by one (for instance, when SovCit talks about 'travelling' they refer to constitutional right of every citizen to travel between states, not anything to do with driving, or if they quote People V Battle, it's whether failure to check brakes counts as crime) and how to counter a point like that in conversation? Just like you did on those Conservapedia publications and books? I would really like to understand it, but I'm not smart enough to read legal documents. SirMaxKing (talk) 08:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Bump, but I can compile several arguments SovCits in traffic stop make
  1. I'm not driving, I'm traveling.
  2. I'm a free citizen, I don't have to obey U.S. law (e.g. I don't need a license to drive)
  3. According to People vs. Battle, traffic violations are not crimes
  4. Appeal to corpus delicti
  5. Mention Article 4
  6. Mention Black's Law dictionary
  7. Mention Affidavit of Truth
  8. Mention Terry v. Ohio
I got most of it courtesy of Donut Operator. He made a Bingo in this video. It would make for a good subsection in the article. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 21:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Tower Hamlets case[edit]

Will mention this. (Bear 'the legalities' in mind when discussing). Anna Livia (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)