Talk:Sovereign citizen/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 22 May 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

Two deputies killed in LA[edit]

A few days ago a group of sovereign citizens killed two deputies here in LA. Add to article? ТyNot updated with a witty slogan this week 15:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Link? SophieWilder 16:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Here ya go ТyNot updated with a witty slogan this week 17:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Useful, especially the bit about other cop shootings and sovcits being labelled terrorists. SophieWilder 17:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What they confuse is common law vs codified law[edit]

Common law is always inferior to codified law. THAT is the concept these mental defectives operated under the lack of comprehension of.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


It seems to me this page is covering things that the Freeman on the Land covers at greater detail. It would seem to be that it would be prudent to merge FOTL into this, as FOTL is a sub... cult of Sovereign citizens. Anyone agree? --Revolverman (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. The FOTL page is heavily UK-biased but the terminology exists throughout the anglosphere. EVDebs (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Related but a different culture, I think. FotL is not so much into its guns, for example. I wouldn't merge them. I think "See also" will do - David Gerard (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

On TV[edit]

Going along with Mission item #4: Season 3, Episode 7 of The Glades talks about sovereign citizens. It's on Netflix. Anyone have any thoughts? --Seth Peck (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, this page is the best Sales Pitch for Freeman. You certainly don't address the Person/Human conception that could have give that page a hedge. But thru the operation of the law, there is no way to permanently 'identify' the Person to the Human. That's why everyone is asked his name, for the Human to be Identified as the Person and therefore apply 'the statute' to it. Discuss or let your page be what it is. Pretty much opinion. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

The comment you added to the article would be suitable for this talk page, not the article itself. - GrantC (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
And yet sovereign arguments are consistently thrown out of court, and no amount of rearranging words to restate the same old arguments ever works. If one was cynical, one might think that the entire sovereign movement is a muddled attempt by some immature, allegedly grown-ass adults to convince themselves that they're somehow special, over and above the 14th amendment's statements. And I'm cynical as all fuck. EVDebs (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I still don't know how anyone believes Governments have crafted their laws in such a way that they have real life cheat codes in them. --Revolverman (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Revolverman, there are. It's generally called perjury. If someone fails to do discovery, you could lie. However, if you believe what you're saying, it's not perjury. But then you could be thrown in contempt of court. You could argue you hold no contempt. If you're asked, "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," just imagine that you answer, "Yes," to the judge's first question and then everything else is, "I don't know what you're talking about." You might want to keep Agrippa's trilemma in your back pocket as evidence. Maybe something from Plato... If someone fails to do discovery, how can the plaintiff or the defendant differentiate between fact and fiction? With no discovery, even a person who believes he or she is telling the truth has no evidence to support that he or she is telling the truth. As such, with no discovery, you may as well say that you do not know anything, because you cannot legally prove anything to yourself to be true. Get it? Due to the card-stacked nature of legal argumentation, you'll want to present evidence that proves that you don't know anything as the first thing; but proving ignorance of the law is not applicable. Ignorance of the law is applicable is certain conditions where social isolation can be proven. The judge could call on the baliff as witness that ignorance is no excuse for the law, so arguing against the judge may not work so well on the "I'm ignorant of the law, too" aspect. If prosecuted for a crime in a Defendant vs. People of State kind of case, move to a different state and push forward the ignorance argument again. Move to a different state each time when you want to restart foundational arguments. -- (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
When you've spent your entire life being taught that quote mining is a legitimate way to understand the Bible, this makes perfect sense. EVDebs (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Office of the Person essay[edit]

I read an article today, which I'll list at the end of this passage, that talks about sovereign citizenship. I think the wiki article does a half-decent job going into the ideaology of what it's about, but the page I read goes more into things like, "Never sign a government document or become part of a government institution, and then you can be your own King/Queen." It's basically a self-ownership philosophy. I don't believe it necessarily implies anarchism. Also, I think the reason that the sovereign citizen individuals cite the constitution and other documents is to prove a foundation for their arguments and immunity. This wiki goes out of the way to make arguments based on socio-economic status (people being white hicks) and so forth, which becomes really irrelevant to the legal topic at hand. What I'm more interested in is whether or not the U.S. Government actually respects people who correctly do the sovereign citizen thing (not becoming part of the government in any legal way). This article discusses people receiving benefits from the government, which nullifies sovereign citizenship. It would be better said that there are people who are making inaccurate arguments. I'm wondering if there is any validity to the sovereign immunity thing. It appears that it does exist for some people, although an extremely small number of individuals:— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 19:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The article has had this (as of the past few minutes): "...many sovereign citizens still receive and redeem government checks as well as other forms of federal financial aid..." For what I understand, that statement is contradicting to qualifying conditions for a man or woman to have sovereign immunity. I see the logic to the sovereign citizen argument. I come from an anarcho-communist background. Allegedly, there are conditions for which an individual would be sovereign from the government. This reminds me of tribal sovereignity (Native Americans). The Amish also have their own protections. The logic seems to be there, so I don't know what about past legal cases with the sovereign immunity argument made them invalid: Perhaps the conditions for such an argument were not evidentially there? Nothing I've read so far has talked about why individuals wouldn't be able to have this sovereign citizenship.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 20:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I looked into this even further. Wow, I'm surprised at this wiki page and Wikipedia. It looks like the sovereign citizen thing was more relevant in the United States when the draft was around. For what I understand, sovereign citizenship enables a person to avoid the draft, especially selective service in the U.S.A.. I am now under the strong belief there is statism bias in the rationalwiki article.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 20:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The text that a BoN just removed...[edit]

...was added by another BoN in 2013: [1] I suggest it remains removed.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

ah, OK - David Gerard (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Found a cite in about two minutes from a critic, looking for primary sources - David Gerard (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
There's lots of wackiness around the 13th Amendment: [2] - David Gerard (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

the big time?[edit]

A few sovereign citizens have killed a tiny handful of cops, so now cops believe the sovereign citizens to be the biggest terrorist threat in the U.S. Do we really need to endorse their view in our article? If I were a psychiatrist and a few Scientologists killed a tiny handful of psychiatrists, I might consider Scientologists to be the biggest terrorist threat in the U.S. That wouldn't make it true. Rand0 (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Another one[edit]

Child rapist tries "sovereign citizen" defence (unsurprisingly, without any success). Someone perhaps should check if he had been into sovereign crap before the trial.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

extreme bias[edit]

I do not know much about this group, just came here to see if I could figure out what paperwork I saw a guy on youtube use to avoid having to show insurance or license but this looks very biased. The whole article reads like something off Encyclopedia dramatica. — Unsigned, by: / talk 11:16, 14 April 2015

You opinion has been duly noted (and disregarded), BoN. Comments should be signed and new sections go at the bottom of the page, btw. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Really? I'm not seeing any porn ads on the side or obscene pictures in the article, though. (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Individual Sovereigns do exist which makes this article void.[edit]

Declaration of Arbroath The Declaration made a number of rhetorical points: that Scotland had always been independent, indeed for longer than England; that Edward I of England had unjustly attacked Scotland and perpetrated atrocities; that Robert the Bruce had delivered the Scottish nation from this peril; and, most controversially, that the independence of Scotland was the prerogative of the Scottish people, rather than the King of Scots. In fact it stated that the nobility would choose someone else to be king if Bruce proved to be unfit in maintaining Scotland's independence. Some have interpreted this last point as an early expression of 'popular sovereignty' – that government is contractual and that kings can be chosen by the community rather than by God alone.

A Claim of Right for Scotland was a document crafted by the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly in 1988, declaring the sovereignty of the Scottish people. It was signed by all then-serving Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs, with the exception of Tam Dalyell (Labour), a strident opponent of devolution. The list of signatories included several MPs who would later attain high office, including future prime minister Gordon Brown, future chancellor Alistair Darling, and future leaders of the Liberal Democrats Charlie Kennedy and Menzies Campbell.

The Claim of Right reads- We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount. We further declare and pledge that our actions and deliberations shall be directed to the following ends: To agree a scheme for an Assembly or Parliament for Scotland; To mobilize Scottish opinion and ensure the approval of the Scottish people for that scheme; and To assert the right of the Scottish people to secure implementation of that scheme.

The argument was based upon the terms of Article 18 of the Treaty of Union, the terms of which are familiar to historians, legal academics and commentators and to the courts which have considered its import on a number of occasions. The Article reads as follows: “That the Laws concerning Regulation of Trade, Customs and such Excises to which Scotland is by virtue of this Treaty to be lyable be the same in Scotland from and after the Union as in England, and that all other Lawes in use within the Kingdom of Scotland do after the Union and notwithstanding thereof remain the same as before (except such as are contrary to or inconsistent with this Treaty) but alterable by the Parliament of Great Britain With this difference betwixt the laws concerning publick Right, Policy and Civil Government and those which concern private Right That the Laws which concern publick Right Policy and Civil Government may be made the same throughout the whole United Kingdom but that no alteration be made in Laws which concern private Right except for the evident utility of the subjects within Scotland.”

In parliamentary systems of government, primary legislation and secondary legislation, also referred to as delegated legislation, are two forms of law, created respectively by the legislative and executive branches of government. The executive branch is commonly known as His/her Majesty's Government (HMG). It is led by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet and is made up of a collection of about a hundred ministers who carry out the laws made by Parliament and who run the government and the country day-to-day. The judicial branch enforces the law.

Primary legislation is law made by the legislative branch of government. This contrasts with secondary legislation, which is usually made by the executive branch. Secondary (or delegated) legislation must be authorized by primary legislation, and conform to boundaries it has laid down. Secondary legislation (also referred to as delegated legislation) is law made by an executive authority under powers delegated from by an enactment of primary legislation, which grants the executive agency power to implement and administer the requirements of that primary legislation. The power to pass delegated legislation is defined and limited by the primary legislation that delated those powers; if the subordinate authority acts beyond its remit, its acts will be invalid or ultra vires.

Forms of secondary legislation in the United Kingdom include: Statutory instruments – made in a variety of forms, most commonly Orders in Council, regulations, rules and orders. The form to be adopted is usually set out in the enabling Act.

US Senate Resolution 155 of 10 November 1997 states that the Declaration of Arbroath, the Scottish Declaration of Independence, was signed on April 6, 1320 and the American Declaration of Independence was modeled on that inspirational document.


Designating April 6 of each year as ``National Tartan Day to recognize the outstanding achievements and contributions made by Scottish Americans to the United States.

Whereas April 6 has a special significance for all Americans, and especially those Americans of Scottish descent, because the Declaration of Arbroath, the Scottish Declaration of Independence, was signed on April 6, 1320 and the American Declaration of Independence was modeled on that inspirational document;

Whereas this resolution honors the major role that Scottish Americans played in the founding of this Nation, such as the fact that almost half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were of Scottish descent, the Governors in 9 of the original 13 States were of Scottish ancestry,Scottish Americans successfully helped shape this country in its formative years and guide this Nation through its most troubled times;

Whereas this resolution recognizes the monumental achievements and invaluable contributions made by Scottish Americans that have led to America's preeminence in the fields of science, technology, medicine, government, politics, economics, architecture, literature, media, and visual and performing arts;

Whereas this resolution commends the more than 200 organizations throughout the United States that honor Scottish heritage, tradition, and culture,representing the hundreds of thousands of Americans of Scottish descent, residing in every State, who already have made the observance of Tartan Day on April 6 a success;

Whereas These numerous individuals, clans, societies, clubs, and fraternal organizations do not let the great contributions of the Scottish people go unnoticed: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate designates April 6 of each year as ``National Tartan Day.— Unsigned, by: / talk 01:16, 28 July 2016‎

This actually has nothing to do with sovereign citizenship and deals with (a) 'defining a state (Scotland) as being distinct from another state (England)', (b) 'We the people (as defining a state)' and (c) the basis for Scottish-themed jollities. Anna Livia (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)