Talk:Sovereign citizen movement/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Needs work

I've created a stub article, based on information in the 3 references. A good article would be a lot longer. It would also be better to have a wider range of sources. I seem to remember an article in TIME magazine, but I haven't been able to find it. Cheers, CWC(talk) 10:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

April 2007

User 216.188.248.205 (talk · contribs) recently deleted a large portion of the article. I've reverted those edits. (I left a message on user talk:216.188.248.205, but that seems to be a dynamic IP, so he/she may not see them.) Anyone who has problems with the article can discuss them by editing this page. (Reading the Wikipedia:talk page guidelines first would be helpful.) Cheers, CWC 01:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

General cleanup

This material makes little if any sense to the extent it touches on legal topics. I've tried to make some edits to begin a clean up, and and to tone down the POV - but without changing the meaning. Yours, Famspear 16:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've made some more edits to tone down the POV. This article as written prior to my edits sounded like a sales pitch for someone pushing conspiracy theories (and it still does to some extent). Neutral Point of View requires that Wikipedia present this kind of material as a description of some people's beliefs. Wikipedia cannot take a position that the beliefs are correct or valid. Yours, Famspear 16:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made some additional changes, but much of the article as presently configured still reads like a joke. Yours, Famspear 16:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear readers: Regarding this paragraph:

The main premise is that the United States is a "Trust". The Congressman and Senators Trustees, and the common people are the Beneficiaries of that Trust. Under this theory, the United States went bankrupt in 1933 and provided a remedy under something called "Limited Liability" in the form of Social Security Insurance. HJR-192 (House Joint Resolution 192) of June 5th 1933, states in part "that no contract can be put forth which calls for payment in substance", and "all debts must be discharged like for like, dollar for dollar." [bolding added on last sentence by Famspear]

I deleted the last sentence. I haven't checked the official text of HJR-192 in the United States Statutes at Large; the version of the text in Wikisource, however, includes no such quotations. (Of course it's possible that the Wikisource version is wrong.)

Aside from the fact that these appear to be false quotations, the sentence doesn't make much sense anyway (although the same can be said about much of the theories described in the article). Yours, Famspear 22:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I imagine the only way to "make sense" of this would be to cut it substantially. Rather than the long, convoluted attempt at explaining an incomprehensible string of legal theories, just boil it down into two or three paragraphs giving an overview of the nature of their claims. Obviously it's not going to "make sense" as a logical argument, but there's no reason we can't craft an accurate characterization of the nature of their beliefs. Unfortunately, what we have now is so nonsensical I wouldn't even know where to start, so good luck.75.139.35.32 13:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Critique

I find the so-called critique weak. When someone critiques or comments on something, they should point to specific items in the article or theory and then write something like "when the 'sovereign citizen movement' claims that xyz, they are in error because such and such refutes that point specifically. For example, in Jan., 19xx, John Doe of anytown, US presented this idea but it was shown to be false because of a, b, & c."

The "Critique" in this article is nothing more than a thinly-veiled ad hominen attack. The "Southern Poverty Law Center" as a rule holds the view that "anyone who challenges 'government authority' is a nutcase and is probably violent"

July 22, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creolefood (talk • contribs)

So what? No court has ever upheld the wacky, baseless legal theories these lunatics spout. The only real critique one can make is that these people are completely wrong and are just making this stuff up. --Eastlaw 21:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

September 7, 2007 Anti-Sheeple League

Folks who espouse the "sovereign movement" as wacky "conspiracy theorists" are obviously blissfully ignorant (a CONSCIOUS CHOICE, not a condition) of the commercial + corporate = fascist mechanism known today as the "Federal Government". If the courts themselves and executive branches of "our" government are openly TRADING on the stock market (don't take my word for it, look it up on the Dunn & Bradstreet website),what in the blue blazes makes you think that all of their "court case decisions" are LAWFUL? It's high time for the mindless supporters of the "perception is reality" set to wake up, due their due diligence & study up on TRUE AMERICAN history & POSITIVE LAW, not case law. Cognitive Dissonance is the financially elite's greatest ally, & it's working brilliantly on folks like yourself, Eastlaw. Let me give you a reading assignment - check out the IRS code section that deals with 501 (c) 3 "tax exempt" organizations such as Wikipedia & the Anti-Defamation League - do you REALLY think that you can be "unbiased" when they fall under the DIRECT CONTROL of the TAX COLLECTION arm (IRS) of the PRIVATELY OWNED FEDERAL RESERVE BANK? Oops, you probably were blissfully ignorant of that TRUTH also, because you obviously prefer blind OPINION to TRUTH. IT IS OUT THERE - do YOU have the courage to face it head-on? I hope so for this country's sake. This whole movement is about returning to a UN-CORRUPT REPUBLICAN form of government, NOT anarchy nor a "DEMOCRACY". Another reading assignment & a gentleman's bet- show me ANYWHERE in the Declaration of Independence (our FOUNDATIONAL document by the way) or the Constitution that makes a SPECIFIC reference to this country as a "Democracy". THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC". That in itself is a contradiction in terms. "Republican" means "BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE". The Definition for "Democracy" is "MOB RULE". Ben Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves & a sheep voting on what to have for dinner". As for the ignorantly ambiguous tripe that the ADL likes to vomit on the "common herd" (not my term - our own "people in government's") is that ANYONE who disagrees with their views is an obvious "anti-semitic" & "white supremacist". How banal! The only "defamation" happening here is THEIR OWN racist railing propaganda. Perhaps some remedial history reading is in order for the likes of you who enjoy seeing your own baseless writing rather than attack the issue in a truthful, forthright manner. Try reading "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin or watch America: Freedom to Fascism from Aaron Russo. Don't just spout OPINION - BACK IT UP WITH TRUTH!By the way, Wikipedia - the LEGAL term for "straw man" is defined in Black's 4th LAW Dictionary as "Stramineus Homo" - "A man of straw, one of no substance, put forward as bail or surety". Oh darn-did I give you another "wacky theory"? Look up "Public Statute" then "Private Statute". Look up "Status" then "Estate". Look up "sovereign" then "Sui Juris". Webster's Dictionary is NOT used in a "court of law", so get a Black's or Ballentine's. Can YOU HANDLE the TRUTH? Think you're up to it? Time to either "break from the herd" or put your head back down, be quiet & keep on grazing. 24.253.74.174 04:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP24.253.74.174: Thank you for sharing your feelings with us, but this is not a weblog. The purpose of this page is to discuss ways to improve the article. Stay on topic. Yours, Famspear 02:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so hard on the loon. He's the best argument against his position we have. --chbarts (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Clean up

I cleaned up the article by mostly cutting the rambling explanation of how to conduct your redemption and instead cited a USDOJ news release, that explains the theory these people work under. It is kind of cockamamie, but the idea I've gotten from reading some other websites is that people who believe in redemption theory, literally believe that government debt is directly connected to each individual citizen, and that as the government pays off that debt, an individual is entitled to the proceeds. Thats where the strawman (which is evidently your account where this money is supposed to be deposited) comes from. SiberioS (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Pretty weird stuff. I made some general copyedits. It's hard to make sense of out this stuff. Famspear (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: Regarding the recent edits by IP97.81.109.205 that were reverted by other editor(s), I have posted the following on that editor's talk page:

I cannot speak for the editor(s) who removed your recent contributions in this article, but I suspect that one reason for the reversions might have been that the language was a bit too non-neutral. I myself agree with the thrust of your edits; it's just that in Wikipedia, Wikipedia itself cannot take these positions.

For example, I think we can agree that the sovereign citizen ideas are indeed "bizarre." Wikipedia, itself however, cannot take that position. If we can locate a previously published third party source that takes that position, we can cite to that source -- making clear that the "bizarreness" is the source's opinion, and not Wikipedia's opinion.

On the Tennessee court case as a primary source, I think that there might be a way to work that back into the article along with some secondary sources (if we can locate some) in the context of an expansion of the article.

I don't know a lot about the sovereign citizen movement per se, so please hang in there. This may take some time.

To reiterate, I think the Tennessee court case might be a proper sourcing, along with some secondary sourcing like material from the Anti-Defamation League, here: [1]. The material just needs to be presented in a neutral tone.

Thoughts or ideas, anyone? Famspear (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Bias of a particular source compared to neutral point of view of the article

A new user deleted a quotation from the Anti-Defamation League, objecting to the verbiage because the verbiage is biased. I reinstated the verbiage.

"Bias" generally does relate to the Wikipedia policy on Neutral Point of View -- but not in the way that the new user may have thought. Bias of a particular source is not the same as neutral point of view (or lack of same) of the article as a whole. Although it may seem odd to a newcomer at first, there is no "neutral point of view" requirement in Wikipedia that sources used in Wikipedia be unbiased. If you think about it after a while, you may realize why this is so.

Here is the rule:

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Debates within topics are clearly described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from asserting which is better.

-- from WP:NPOV (bolding added).

You cannot present opposing viewpoints in an article without those viewpoints being biased. By definition, the viewpoints must be biased in order for those viewpoints to be opposed to each other. "Neutral point of view" means the neutrality of the article as a whole -- not the absence of points of view (biased or unbiased) within the article.

It is not Wikipedia itself that is saying the words in the quotation. It is the source that is making the statement. And it is OK to show that quotation (or an accurate paraphrase of that statement) in the Wikipedia article, even if the statement is biased and even if the source making that statement is biased.

What would be impermissible, however, would be for Wikipedia to then say "Oh, by the way, this source is correct" or "that source is wrong".

Neutral point of view is a complicated concept in Wikipedia, and we would agree that there are certainly some ways that an article might fail the NPOV standard, even without the article expressly saying "this source is right" or "that source is wrong." Deleting an accurate, in-context quotation from a reliable, previously published third party source merely because that quotation is biased, however, is generally not appropriate -- for the simple reason that the mere use of a "biased quotation" does not, in and of itself, violate the NPOV rule. Famspear (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

legal filing example

Why is it in all caps-lock, randomly underlined, and written like complete gibberish? Surely nobody actually believes that arbitrarily putting lines under words will cause nonsense to suddenly make sense. ʄ!•¿talk? 17:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear editor Fennessy: I've studied the writings of delusional people for years, and I can attest to the fact that there are indeed a few people who, apparently, actually believe this kind of stuff. Much of this kind of nonsense is found the U.S. tax protester scams, which I have been studying for some years. Famspear (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

still needs work

I realize that there are people who actually believe this nonsense. We cannot expect their writing to be coherent. However, I think that we can expect the rest of the article to be better written than it is. For example:

"Courts have consistently in the past that the movement has legal merit, but not recently."

Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.123.4.230 (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism. Fixed. WillOakland (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Notes from SLAUTCAANS on commonlaw sub-reddit

http://www.reddit.com/r/CommonLaw/comments/76yhn/wiki_sovereign_citizen_movement_courts_have/c05uelj

"A 'Citizen' cannot be sovereign. And courts will always rule so, becuase this is absolutely correct...

A 'Citizen', like a 'person', is a legal-fiction or legal-entity created for acting under a created jurisdiction - a created set of rules. Such as the jurisdicion of the State or of the United States. This is why we can be both a 'Citizen' OF the State, and a 'Citizen' OF the United States. - These legal-fictions are creations of each.

See Welcome Page.

- You're either a Sovereign OR a 'Citizen'.

A 'Citizen' is a subject of something... It has obligation.

This is the mistake that most people make, they think that they want to remain a Citizen and can be sovereign.

     A sovereign by defition has no obligations and is free, unless he or she chooses to have those obligations - such as by contract. A human being - man or woman - can be sovereign.
   *

     A 'Citizen' has obligations to its creator, just as a 'person'.

You can put a Claim of Right on your 'person', so that only you the human being can give your 'person' obligations, but as for the 'Citizen' - this is created by the State and will always have obligations to it.

'Denying corporate existence' means breaking the link with one of the created 'Citizens'. For instance, you - the human being - state that you no longer associate with the created entity - the 'Citizen' of the United States (as defined in 1868).

This is done with a "Claim of Right" to put you in charge of your 'person' and a "Notice of Understanding and Intent".

A "Claim of Right" is literally that. You claim and reserve the right to hold title to your own name - the Strawman or Trade Name as written in ALL-CAPITALS (your 'Capitis Diminutio Maxima' name) - that was created for you on your behalf at birth.

Furthermore, to add complications for you, this is dependent on Jurisdiction which acts on a given name. Just as you can simultaneously be 1. A 'Citizen' of the United States, and 2. A 'Citizen' of the State, you can also be 3. A free and sovereign human being, protected by the Common Law and free to make contract (equity).

Which one of these you are at any instance depends on the Jurisdiction you fall under. If you are doing business with a private man by Contract then you are under 3. (though the courts will try to pull you under the UCC / U.S. Code, and you will voluntarily contract with the court by stating your name and arguing in their court), if you are dealing with the State, you are under 2., and dealing with agents of the US FEDERAL GOV (incl FBI, Homeland Security, District Judges etc.) then you are under 1.

Of course, this is a generalization, and doesn't go into the details of contractual obligations." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osirisx11 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced commentary

The following unsourced commentary has been moved from the article to here:

The concept of the Sovereign Citizen originates with the Magna Carta, considered the most important document to modern democratic forms of government, issued by King John of England in 1215 and confirmed by Edward 1 in 1297. In the Magna Carta the sovereign monarchs granted that men were endowed with rights above monarchy, rights granted universally by God directly to men, and that men may not rightfully be denied life and property by capricious act of monarchy but must be found guilty by law and fair process.

The concept of sovereign citizenship is introduced in the second paragraph of the American Declaration of Independence with the phrasing “…that they (men) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” meaning that certain rights may not rightfully be denied or eroded by government, law or rulers and they are rights that naturally exist through all time in spite of all challenge or denial. That principle is asserted in the first three words of the United States Constitution “We the People (…establish this Constitution)” clearly authorizing the citizen as sovereign and government as subordinate. Some such unalienable rights of sovereign citizenship are enumerated and decreed in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution which strictly limits and regulates the authority of government in the deprivation of life and property from citizens. Without citizen sovereignty democratic government is false and corrupt. To refer to sovereign citizenship as “extremist” is to insult the Constitution, the Magna Carta and democratic government.

"Sovereign Citizen" does not belong in "Category: Conspiracy Theories". Please remove the false, misleading and irresponsible assertions above ("Courts have consistently ruled that the concept of a sovereign citizen has no legal merit..").

This is unsourced commentary, and really belongs here on the talk page.

The concept of a "sovereign citizen" does not originate with the Magna Carta. The concept is not introduced in the Declaration of Independence. The term "sovereign" is being used in the article to describe the way adherents of the Sovereign Citizen Movement use the term -- which is quite different from the way the term "sovereign" in used in the U.S. legal system. More on this later.... Yours, Famspear (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Legal sources

Regarding a recent edit:

To the best of my knowledge, there is no Wikipedia rule that "legal references must be hard copy, not just N-NPOV position papers on the web". First, there is no requirement that legal sources be "hard copy." A legal source that is published only on the internet is not disqualified on that ground.

Second, there is no requirement that sources of any kind be "neutral." In Wikipedia, as odd as it may sound at first, the sources themselves may be biased or non-neutral -- without violating the policy on Neutral Point of View (NPOV). The NPOV policy deals with how Wikipedia presents the information in the article, not with whether the source itself is "neutral."

Bias or non-neutrality in a source could possibly affect some other Wikipedia rule -- such as Verifiability. In other words, if the source is so biased that the information is unreliable, then there might be a problem.

To the best of my knowledge Bernard Sussman and the Anti-Defamation League would be considered a reliable source. Famspear (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Excerpt from the rules on Neutral Point of View:

Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence.

--(italics added). Famspear (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sussman's book has been cited, for example, here. Even if Sussman's book were not reliable, the court rulings collected in it would be. WillOakland (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger?

The page Sovereign Citizens was redirected here, then the redirect was undone, so it seems we need to discuss whether or not it really is a separate concept from this movement. Personally, I'm not sure I see evidence that it is. Thoughts anyone? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I can only share personal experience on the issue, which I understand doesn't hold much weight online, but here goes: I think the movements are very similar, but not in contact with one another because I've mentioned the sovereign movement to a group before, and they claimed to not know what I was talking about. So I would infer that they're the redemption movement. But, not entirely sure on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.163.251 (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't Agree With Merger

There is a difference between the concept of sovereign citizenship and the Sovereign Citizen movement, particularly here in the U.S., as a worthwhile subject. Unless there was some other reason behind the original merger. Njsamizdat (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This matter is now at WP:AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sovereign Citizens. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Slander

There is nothing inherently racist about this ideology. And citing fear mongers like the ADL and SPLC is a violation of wikipedia's rules. These groups are openly anti-sovereign citizen and make no secret of their bias against the ideology. Neither of those is a valid source.

The whole end of the article needs to be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.14.126 (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) and SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) would be considered reliable third party sources for purposes of Wikipedia. Clue: In Wikipedia, there is no requirement that the source itself be "unbiased" or that a source "not make a secret of its bias." Please review Wikipedia rules on Neutral Point of View (NPOV). Even if these groups are "openly anti-sovereign citizen", that would not in and of itself be a valid objection for using the source in a Wikipedia article. Famspear (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not in any sources' supposed 'open bias' but lies more in a general <youtube link redacted>lack of clarification, failure to make elementary etymological distinctions and an implicitly preemptive defamation of people currently within United States jurisdiction seeking to remember creditable international communion without federal agency by <youtube link redacted>repeatedly using misnomer as alias. It is obvious to anyone astute but perhaps overlooked that the most effective method for anyone to protect themselves from this so-categorized conspiracy theory (a misnomer of hypothesis to note in general and in this case one of legal hypothesis) is if they were made elucidated as to how "Sovereign Citizen" is an oxymoron and thus make one able to efficiently render any person titling themselves as such or claiming to be of the movement incompetent on the spot. 72.178.158.17 (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What problem are you speaking of, 72.178.158.17? We need to know in order to understand the rest of your post. Thanks. 50.135.151.101 (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

As an attorney, the "legal" arguments presented in the article and this talk page make no sense. As an English major, most of the above statements by 72.178.158.17 are unintelligible due to misusing or misunderstanding five-dollar words. It would be nice if someone could clarify the "legal" underpinnings of the SC movement, as in starting at the basic foundation for their beliefs and then slowly building on them until they reach the current status of affairs. Reallypablo (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The legal underpinnings of the movement are a mixture of radical pseudo-libertarianism, wishful thinking and misusing or misunderstanding five-dollar words and legal precedents. If you follow the specific legal cites usually proferred by them, you'll be led down a mystical maze in which the etymological fallacy runs rampant, and "common sense" trumps common (and statute) law, and some self-taught rural judge's 19th-century ruling, slightly twisted, is held to trump decades of subsequent precedent. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and the "common sense" that followers of this nonsense espouse has little or no meaningful correspondence with the common sense of most people. I've been studying tax protesters in the United States for about 13 years, and the "sovereign citizen" nonsense came to my attention as part of that study. The so-called "sovereign citizens" share some of the characteristics of the tax protesters. Both groups tend to engage in an idiosyncratic and (from a legal analysis standpoint) totally erroneous process of amalgamating words taken out of context, sometimes from legitimate sources -- such as the texts of court opinions -- and then claiming that the materials somehow stand for some preposterous legal or political proposition that the author of the source material in no way espouses. I find these people fascinating in part for the same reason I find tax protesters fascinating: the psychology of these people. These are almost without exception very angry, bitter, paranoid types who "see" evil plots everywhere. Famspear (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Unsigned from 27 January 2010 suggests that the ADL and SPLC are not legitimate sources due to expectations in bias, however the history of the Sovereign citizen ideologies has been one of the subjects that organized skeptics have examined and "debunked," if you will, for decades, and science-based skeptic groups such as the Bay Area Skeptics (defunct) and The Skeptic Tank (Los Angeles, California) were evaluating and debunking the race-based claims and tax-predicated claims of the Christian Identity groups which originated the Sovereign citizen movement long before the ADL and SPLC became aware of (and thus became involved in) the exposure/debunking of the movement.

So the ADL and SPLC are not unique. So far as perceived bias is concerned, the critical examination and the scientific/legal debunking of any claim (be it claims of the paranormal, claims of denial of Federal citizenship, or any claim at all) can certainly contain bias, however the matter of legitimacy, testability, and falsifiability trumps bias. An organization or an individual may indeed harbor significant bias in his or her proclamations however such bias is irrelevant in the fact of the survival of efforts at testing claims.

In the case of Sovereign citizens ideologies and the ADL, SPLC, and organized skeptics groups which have examined and debunked the claims stemming from such ideologies for decades, perceived bias is not relevant in the face of irrefutable evidence, specifically in the face of the movement's undisputed origins (Christian Identity.) The movement's origins are solidly predicated in white supremacist racism. Over time additional motivations and ideologies were added to the movement and, indeed, new concepts are added while older ideals decline in favor among adherents, however the core ideology for the formation of the movement was racism.

Slander requires that something written be untrue, ergo the article contains no slander. Damotclese (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I would add that there is some measure of irony in the fact that many of the people who believe themselves to be Sovereign within the United States are Negros (reference here) which further shows that the movement itself has broadened and expanded from its [[[Christian Identity]]] origins. Those uncomfortable with the direction that the movement has taken, and those uncomfortable with the movement's factual origins would be best adopting a new title banner under which their unusual ideologies might be carried. Damotclese (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Claim vs Declare

You don't apply or make a claim for being sovereign. You DECLARE sovereignty. Please reword the first paragraph if you can grasp this. 68.28.105.227 (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This article states "In March of 2010 a group calling itself the Guardians of the Free Republics issued letters to at least 30 US state governors threatening violence if they did not leave office within 3 days" - attributed to the Huufuington Post. Yet the AP story cited by Huffington states "Investigators do not see threats of violence in the group's messageItalic text, but fear the broad call for removing top state officials could lead others to act out violently." [Emphasis added.] Generously, this could be the fallacy of extension, but in any case, it is a clear misstatement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.151.200 (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Racism Smear

I am removing this section as it appears to simply be an unverifiable claim made in an "intelligence report" authored by people known to be slap-happy with accusations of racism, extrapolated to denigrate anyone who associates themselves with this group of people. Even if a couple people in the 70s used this term, that needs to be clearly and specifically stated instead of attempting to discredit the entire movement with allegations of racism.--82.43.47.6 (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is the article the reference for the racism smear points to: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2008/winter/house-of-ill-repute No evidence of calling black people "14th Amendment citizens", nor of those people being racist, apart from the allegation of a police officer. It is ridiculous that this was ever included in the article.--82.43.47.6 (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Problems with title

This title could create confusion between the political/philosophical concept of individual sovereignty, which a lot of libertarians believe in, and the totally separate concept of the sovereignty myth. Therefore, I encourage a merger. Tisane (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Jared Loughner

It's possible that Loughner is a part of this movement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJdAfChCRGE
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/sovereign-citizens-jared-lee-loughner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.163.195 (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sovereign Citizen - An Oxymoron

-The ADL "Sovereign Citizens" publication does not cite ANY sources, and does not even divulge who it's authors are, so please tell me why they should be considered reliable sources? We're looking for facts, not propaganda. Additionally, the term "Sovereign Citizen" is an oxymoron. You can't be a Sovereign AND a Citizen! Whoever coined that phrase didn't know about sovereignty, did they? This article doesn't deserve to be here, because it is all based on assumptions. ------ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.176.122 (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

-Because the ADL is considered to be a reliable source. It is generally not considered necessary to demand that every source article be perfectly cited itself if it comes from a reliable publication. And no, this article is not based on assumptions, it is based on the fact that judges have thrown this useless argument out of court every time it pops up. And whether you like it or not, the fact is that law is defined by the legal opinions and rulings of judges. 72.71.243.39 (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect 72.71.243.39, 1) I understand where you are coming from and I do not encourage any unlawful behavior. I don't really care whether or not people are getting convicted of crimes related to the so called "Sovereign Citizens" movement. I just want to see an unbiased viewpoint. Obviously the ADL are coming from a position of disapproval with the Posse Commatatus reference. Tell me how this is helping the article remain unbiased? 63.225.176.34 (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly correct to say that from a U.S. law standpoint, an individual cannot be a "sovereign" (whether he or she is a citizen or not). Sovereignty in the United States is a "group" concept -- as in, "the people are sovereign" (not "a specific individual person" is sovereign). Having said that, I agree that the article is not "all based on assumptions." It is an article about a wacky -- but notable -- fringe group, much like "tax protesters," for whom Wikipedia has a whole group of articles. And under the U.S. legal system, the authoritative interpretations of the law are indeed court rulings, not the theories of members of some fringe group. Famspear (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Famspear, I'm sorry but your statement is not accurate. See Black's Law dictionary 5th edition entry for "Sovereign", a sovereign is a person, body, or state having supreme authority over themselves. So, a citizen and a sovereign are two very conflicting concepts which is why I think it is an Oxymoron. Any questions?63.225.176.34 (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear 63.225.176.34: I'm very sorry, but you're apparently not understanding what I wrote. I am agreeing with you. The term "citizen" as a description of a U.S. citizen, and a "sovereign" -- as a description of just about ANY resident of the United States, are indeed "oxymoronic." The two are indeed very conflicting concepts. An "individual" in the United States cannot be a "sovereign." So, exactly which "statement" that I made do you somehow interpret as being "not accurate"? Famspear (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear 63.225.176.34: I have, however, deleted the entry in the article referring to Black's Law Dictionary. I just happen to own a copy of Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., which is the version that was referenced. The definition of "sovereign" in that dictionary is: "A person, body, or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested; a chief ruler weith supreme pwoer; a king or other ruler with limited power." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1252 (5th ed. 1979). The entry in the article was a bit too far off. Famspear (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Now, I have added the actual verbatim definition of "sovereign" from Black's Law Dictionary, and I have re-arranged the order of the sentences in that section. The believers of the "sovereign citizen" movement are wrong, but Wikipedia itself cannot take the position in a Wikipedia article that the believers are wrong. What we do is report what reliable, previously published third party sources say. Famspear (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, regarding this question: "Obviously the ADL are coming from a position of disapproval with the Posse Commatatus reference. Tell me how this is helping the article remain unbiased?" Whether the ADL is biased or not is not the question, if we are using ADL as a source. In Wikipedia, the sources themselves do not have to be unbiased. The Wikipedia rule on Neutral Point of View (NPOV) does NOT require that the SOURCES be unbiased. NPOV refers to the way the material is presented by Wikipedia's writers in the article. You cannot delete source material from an article merely because the source material, or even the source itself, is "biased." Please review the rules on Neutral Point of View. Famspear (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Famspear, You state that the entry I wrote 'was a bit too far off', and you don't provide any reasoning for why you removed it other than your interpretation of Blacks Law Dictionary is more accurate than mine. I also sense that you have some kind of vested interest in keeping the article about how Sovereign Citizens have broken the law, are conspiracy theorists, have 'wacky' legal theories, and should be treated as a fringe group of outsiders. You stated 'The believers of the "sovereign citizen" movement are wrong..' but are they wrong 100% of the time? I don't think so. It isn't fair to put all of them in a bad light just because a few of them have broken the law or acted violently. Unfortunately, this is what has happened to the article. You are not the authority on this subject. No one is. Your original reply to me included the phrase 'Sovereignty in the United States is a "group" concept'. Yes, it is. But it is ALSO an individual concept as well, as Black's Law Dictionary states when it says a PERSON. That is why the term 'Sovereign Citizen' makes no sense. Anyone who has studied the numerous publications about UCC Redemption would laugh at this label that was given to them. I'll let you respond to this first before I place my original text back in the article. I'm not deleting any entries because I think they are wrong, so please refrain from deleting mine. I'm trying to abide by the Wikipedia standards because they are fair to everyone, I hope you would do the same in the future. 63.226.192.66 (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Famspear, according to Wikipedia, "..Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material." I have not violated this rule, therefore you acted out of line when you removed my text from the article. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt until you clearly show otherwise. 63.226.192.66 (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear IP63.226.192.66: I'm not sure what you mean by the statement that you "sense" that I have some sort of "vested interest," other than that you are reacting to the fact that your material was edited. Your request that I refrain from deleting your entries is misplaced. Everything you and I write is subject to being edited or deleted by another editor.

No, I did not violate the Wikipedia rule. No, I was not out of line. Please go back and re-read the original entry. I would argue that the original entry is not what Black's Law Dictionary said -- or meant. To avoid any confusion, I therefore replaced the original entry with a direct quote from Black's -- indeed from the very same edition of Black's that was cited, the Fifth Edition. It's OK to paraphrase rather than provide a direct quote, but the paraphrase must accurately summarize the source.

Black's Law Dictionary does not say that an individual citizen or resident of the United States is a "sovereign." The reference in Black's Law Dictionary to a single person is a reference to a single person having sovereignty such as a monarch - a king, for example. A single individual citizen of the United States, for example, does not have sovereignty in the legal sense, and Black's Law Dictionary cannot be cited for an argument to the contrary. Famspear (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Famspear, I still think you're incorrect about your interpretation of personal sovereignty, but I'm not going to add the text back in there. Perhaps we can add the entry for "citizen" and let the readers decide for themselves if 'Sovereign Citizen' is a phrase that makes sense to them? Cheers Visitor10001 (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Or, maybe add a link to the Wikipedia article on citizenship. At any rate, I would argue that it's not really a question of letting the readers decide whether the term "makes sense" to the reader. I would argue the main job is just to present information about the topic -- from reliable, previously published third party sources. Here's one possible definition that could be used:

Citizen: "One who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of a particular state, is a member of the political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

--from Black's Law Dictionary, p. 221 (5th ed. 1979). Famspear (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the Wikipedia article: Citizenship. Famspear (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Information about the topic of "Sovereign Citizen", so, "Sovereign" and "Citizen" are both directly related to the topic and therefore are worthy of having a clear and precise legal definition in the article. Visitor10001 (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I added the definition of "citizen" to the article. Famspear (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

False Portrayal and Categorization

I am adding some new text into the article. Hopefully this will help to show people both sides to the story. Please do not remove this, I have clearly used a reliable source, and remember that Wikipedia does not require that a reliable source be unbiased, as so many contributors have commented to me in reference to my statements. Thank You. 63.226.192.66 (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that someone has edited and moved my entry to the bottom of the article. Shall I add a few more paragraphs to the article that may not be in harmony with the ADL and SPLC viewpoint? Or would this anonymous person like to stop editing my text? I'd rather not play king of the mountain, I have better things to do than patrol this article. Visitor10001 (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The text I added is in the wrong sub-heading. I would like to move it to the History Section, though I fear retaliation from another anonymous scholar. Perhaps we can come to a compromise? Visitor10001 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Visitor10001: Welcome to Wikipedia! One of the rules is to assume good faith of other editors when editing in Wikipedia. Also, everything you and I write is subject to the possibility of edition. Your reference to a "fear" of "retaliation" may really be a "fear" of seeing others edit what you have written. This article is a work in progress, as are all articles in Wikipedia. When others edit what you write, don't take it personally.

I moved the material down into the next section because, with its mention of the SPLC's view of sovereign citizens, it seems to "fit" more readily in the article right after the other reference to SPLC that was already in the article.

PS: Technically, I am not "anonymous" -- and neither are you, at this point, since you have set up an account with the user name "Visitor10001." We are both "pseudonymous" since we have user names that are not our "real" names. Yours, Famspear (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm glad that I was able to contribute to this topic. Cheers! Visitor10001 (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

..just because some SC promoter misrepresented

And on that same token, it isn't necessary to remove them, just because some anti Sovereign Citizen editor thinks they should be removed without giving an intelligent reason. I see right through your lame excuses, you're just mad because your little smear campaign is turning into something that is more accurate than it used to be. I will not back down until both sides of the story are told. So, you wanna play hardball? Let's play! Visitor10001 (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Visitor10001: You may want to review Wikipedia's policies about edit warring. Be careful, because it is normally a violation to revert other editors more than three times in a 24 hour period. Also, personal attacks are violations. Statements such as "I see right through your lame excuses" and "you wanna play hardball" and "I will not back down until both sides of the story are told" are also hurting your position. You've done a good job working with me, but I think you are alienating some experienced editors here. Please take a deep breath. Thanks! Famspear (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Funny, because my edit's have been repeatedly removed without good reason more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. But I guess there's nothing I can do, because of people like you. So tell me how that is fair? I'm sure you'll have some Wikipedia canned answer for that. Visitor10001 (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Remove or Alter the usage of the word "extremist" in the first sentence of the article

I removed the word "extremist" due to its ambiguous meaning and frequent usage as an expression of opinion rather than a fact. I did not think its usage lended value to the article nor was its usage neutral in this context.

99.64.103.58 (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC) K.C.Golden

I undid your edit. The claim is not an opinion someone just crammed into the article; the terminology is sourced to the FBI itself, which used the word to refer to the movement and its participants. [2] Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. In that case, its usage should refer to the source such as "according to the FBI..." followed by a quote from the report in order to keep the article neutral. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a member and agree with the term to describe the group, just not the way its written out right now as it currently implies an expression of opinion in the wiki article itself when it was in fact, the FBI report that expressed the opinion so they should be directly quoted if it is to be used. I'll leave that decision to you.Oldmanklc (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That it's sourced to the FBI is how it says "according to the FBI." If everything worked that way, every single sourced statement would be "according to Webster's Dictionary," "according to historian Bob Smith," etc.

I think, if anyone is allowed to designate a definition, it's Webster's, and if something is defined, I don't think you should say, "in Webster's opinion, the word 'boat' means..." because Webster's is stating facts it knows, not opinions. On the same side of the coin, if I want an expert analysis of a group like this, I'll ask the FBI. The term, while inflammatory, isn't just a tossed-off opinion; it's the result of tons of investigations, trials, arrests, and research. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's one thing to cite a source which is reporting a fact without a quote as in the below sentence:

The average temperature in the interior of Antarctica is -50°C.^[1]

When citing an opinion, it needs to be clear that it is the cited source making the statement and not the article. It is not clear that this is the case without come sort of quote. Even quotation marks around the word "extremist" would be appropriate.

To further back up what I am saying, see the section "Handling Neutrality Disputes," subsection "Attributing and specifying biased statements" of Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View" article. In it, it describes specifically how I am requesting the FBI's opinion of the group be described in the article. It even says specifically "Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution," meaning the cited source must be quoted. ^[2].

I have made an edit which I believe is compliant with Wiki's Neutrality Guidelines while leaving the word "extremist" in the article. While I do not agree that the statement lends any value to the article, at least attempting to cite it in the manner of my recent edit keeps the article factual since it merely quotes rather than appears to agree with a bias in one of its sources. I hope that further edits along these lines will involve how best to use the biased statement rather than edits which introduce the bias into the article itself.Oldmanklc (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation

The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation is not a reliable source. The FBI, as well as any other "gov" agency have a free-for-all publishing pass. They can basically say whatever the hell they want, and since they are the government, then it must be true, and if you dare to question were they got their information, then you're automatically a "fringe conspiracy theorist" or whatever the term is these days. I'm tired of reading blatant LIES cited from government publications that claim to be "official statements" about this and that. Obviously, the government is going to try their hardest to make these people seem like really dangerous "extremists" (god I hate that word). The gov't doesn't like it when people get to the root of their fraudulent colorable courts and implied powers of police state. As if they would come out and admit to enslaving the entire "citizen" population through the Federal Reserve (british fractional reserve banking), subtle brain-washing by the major "news outlets", poisoning our food and water etc... Am I a "conspiracy theorist" now?? Is that what you've decided to label me as? Yeah, that's because your brain cannot handle the cognitive dissonance you'd have to endure if you decided to look at this topic with an open mind, rather than a sock-puppet gov't free pass to distort the truth and fraudulently create some stupid "reality". Thank you very much. 63.225.172.116 (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is a reliable source. Famspear (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well let's not trust the FBI too much, shall we (grain of salt and all that)? It has lied to the American people and the Congress before. But in this case, concerning this particular subject IMHO it is a reliable source (I actually find 60 minutes more trustworthy - and the documentary seemed reliable enough). Flamarande (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Famspear, no, they aren't reliable until they are verifiable. Where does the FBI get their trusted 3rd party information then? How can I double check to make sure they aren't "self publishing" whatever they deem necessary to achieve their agenda?? Well, I probably can't. You see my point? 63.225.172.116 (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point, and the point misses the point. Under the rules of Wikipedia, the FBI is considered a reliable source. Your job as a Wikipedia editor is not to "double check" a source to make sure it isn't "self publishing" whatever it "deems necessary" to achieve its "agenda." Government agencies have been putting out falsehoods for as long as there have been government agencies. And people in government agencies may have agendas -- which may make them biased.

The fact that a source such as the FBI may have an "agenda" or may be "biased" or may be "self publishing whatever it deems necessary" is not a valid objection for to the use of that source in Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, sources are allowed to be biased, and Wikipedia does not exclude biased sources merely because they are biased. Please review the Wikipedia guidelines on Relaible Sources and, in particular, the Wikipedia rules on Neutral Point of View. Yours, Famspear (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The FBI can be as biased as they want, so long as you and I can find the trusted 3rd party sources they used to formulate those views. So you're basically avoiding the real question here, Famspear. The FBI can "self-publish", however some other obscure organization or researcher cannot hope to have their viewpoint taken seriously because.. well.. they aren't like the FBI? I can't see the logic behind your statements. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.172.116 (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not avoiding the "real question" here. The real question is whether, for purposes of Wikipedia, the FBI is considered a reliable source. The real question is not whether YOU consider the FBI to be a "reliable source," but rather whether the FBI is considered a reliable source for purposes of Wikipedia.

No, there is no Wikipedia rule that says that in order for Wikipedia to use the FBI as a source in an article, Wikipedia editors must be able to "find the trusted 3rd party source they [the FBI] used to formulate those views [sic]."

The FBI is a U.S. government agency. It's part of the U.S. Department of Justice. It has a good reputation for checking the facts -- that's the job of the FBI. There is meaningful oversight within the FBI to provide reasonable assurance that FBI news releases are accurate. That doesn't mean that the FBI is always correct. That doesn't mean that FBI employees have never put out false information. The FBI is not "widely acknowledged" as being "extremist" or "promotional," and the FBI does not rely heavily on rumour or personal opinion in issuing its news releases.

The term "self-publishing" as that term is used in Wikipedia does not refer to publishing of official statements by a U.S. government agency. The term does refer to things such as web sites by private individuals or private organizations without a reputation for fact-checking.

The reason you can't see the "logic" behind my statements is that I'm not using "my logic." I am explaining the rules of Wikipedia. Famspear (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That's correct, that's the way Wikipedia works. Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"The FBI is a U.S. government agency." So what? That means absolutely nothing. "There is meaningful oversight within the FBI.." And whose definition of "meaningful" are we using here? "..and the FBI does not rely heavily on rumour or personal opinion in issuing its news releases" I'm sure they don't, yet I still have no clue what they actually do rely on for their news releases, and that's the problem I'm hoping we can resolve here. Thank you. 63.225.172.116 (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And that's why people who use their brains can't take Wikipedia seriously. The End. 63.225.172.116 (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think most intelligent people can understand our policies and guidelines. That you don't like them doesn't prove you aren't intelligent but it may suggest that your pov is getting in your way - I suspect anyone taken in by this movement would struggle with the way we work. Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User IP63.225.172.116 wrote: ".....yet I still have no clue what they actually do rely on for their news releases, and that's the problem I'm hoping we can resolve here."

No, we cannot "resolve" what you refer to as that "problem" here - not here on a Wikipedia talk page. We as Wikipedia editors are not here to do an in-depth analysis of how the FBI formulates the content of its news releases. In matters of federal law enforcement involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the consensus among Wikipedia editors is that the FBI itself is considered a reliable source for purposes of Wikipedia. That means that Wikipedia editors can use the FBI as a source in Wikipedia articles. Famspear (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

" We as Wikipedia editors are not here to do an in-depth analysis of how the FBI formulates the content of its news releases." So you're speaking for every Wikipedia editor, not one of which cares to question the legitimacy of 'official statements' from the FBI (and other agencies I assume). Wow. That's believable. 63.225.172.42 (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 63.225.172.42: No, I'm not speaking for "every Wikipedia editor." I'm explaining to you what we as Wikipedia editors are here -- or in this case are not here -- to do, just as any other Wikipedia editor might explain to you on a talk page. And our purpose here as editors is not to "question" -- or "not question" -- the "legitimacy" of official statements from the FBI or other government agencies. Our purpose is to write and edit this encyclopedia using reliable, previously published third party sources. We can report on what reliable, previously published third party sources have done to "question" what you call the "legitimacy" of official government pronouncements, but it is not our job to do the "questioning" ourselves. Wikipedia articles are not places for publishing the personal beliefs of Wikipedia editors. Famspear (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Was it not the whole "we write what we are told" attitude of mainstream media that led to the rise of wiki-frenzy in the first place. It might be politically correct to cite wikipedias opinion to be the same as the FBI (ie no need to state that "X came from the FBI" when "X" will suffice), but if an article focussed on politics allows itself to be superceded by a currently powerful political entity, then it is hardly being faithful to the truth. I dont know about wikipedia policies - and there are some people claiming that its policy to consider government entities to be more truthful than any other entities - but I notice that wikipedia is not a reliable source when it comes to politics. The talk pages are more telling than the articles when it comes to political or social matters. PS The FBI, like any agency of any government is engaged in lying constantly and its usually evidenced by their own admissions which can usually be found swept under carpets but never on the television or anything that it seems alot of wikipedia editors consume very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.68 (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm disgusted by the derisive POV tone in this article.

This is unencyclopedic to the max. The sovereign citizens are surreptitiously being painted as loonies making cockamamie claims. You people know damn well that putting their claims in quotes when none are called for is equivalent to making air quotes to imply sarcastic mockery. COME ON. And the article focuses almost exclusively on the illegal and unethical activities of the group, and its dismissal by the very court system they hold to be the problem (where it should be implicit that the court's dismissal of their claim is to be expected and carries little weight), without giving the time of day to the validity of the group's concerns and claims. This article's contributors should be ashamed of themselves. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the burden is probably on you to show why this should not be treated as more than a fringe theory. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 07:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Lenin and McCarthy, there's no burden here at all. The general consensus has NOT been reached yet. This is an online encyclopedia, not a debate competition. In case you didn't realize, the ratio of editors on the "fringe conspiracy" side is actually much much lower than you assume. Thanks.

50.135.151.101 (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably, but extra measures are being taken in this article to actively cop a snide tone. Air quotes are uncalled for and totally inappropriate. I feel like I'm reading Conservapedia.

Here, let me take an artificial stance in their favor and argue their case so you can see it's not complete horsecrap: People claiming sovereignty argue that they have never given consent to be ruled; they were born and a government simply assumed ownership of them, due merely to the geographic location where they, through no choice of their own, happened to be born. Therefore the government should not be able to force itself onto them and, on threat of imprisonment, force them to give it money from their pockets, hard-earned from their labor, when they do not use any of that government's services and never asked to be a part of this. You can't be born into inherited slavery if freedom is a natural right. The government should also not be allowed to force laws upon you that you never agreed to. You are not a slave or property. "I reject the idea that I was born damned to be a cog in this machine whether I like it or not."

Sovereignty of the individual is a philosophical concept much bigger than this marginalized movement, and fairly well-understood by the intelligentsia, so it is not a mere "fringe theory" (see, I can air-quote too). I don't think it needs as much explanation as you seem to be requiring. Because of this, I plead clemency for this group and beg for a better article. I do understand how they feel. The nature of their "illegal" actions is in direct keeping with their credo and does not discredit the movement, contrary to what is being implied by the tone and structure of the article. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

MacAstaroth, you stated that Sovereignty of the individual is a philosophical concept. Yes you are correct, but sovereignty is much more than a philosophical subject that you discuss with your accredited mentors. Sovereignty is a legal word, it is found in trusted legal dictionaries. The publishers of Black's Law Dictionary included the definition of personal sovereignty because it is a legal concept with legal consequences. Try not to conveniently ignore that. Thanks. 50.135.151.101 (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't usually interlineate comments, but I would point out that user IP50.135.151.101 is confused. No one is saying that the term "sovereignty" isn't a legal term. What I am saying is that there is no such thing, in the United States of America, as a legal doctrine or rule of law that recognizes that a specific individual is "sovereign" in the sense in which those people who are the subject of this article use that term. Whether you or I want to be or not, we are subject to the federal and state laws of the United States. Black's Law Dictionary doesn't say other wise, so my advice to IP 150.135.151.101 is: "try not to conveniently ignore that." Famspear (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Succubus MacAstaroth: Actually, yes, this is a fringe theory. Neither the United States nor any other nation has ever recognized the idea that each specific individual within the society is somehow "sovereign." Indeed, it's logically and legally nonsensical.

Famspear, of course the US can't acknowledge that each individual is somehow a "sovereign." The reason for this is because the United States is a fictitious corporate entity, and has no jurisdiction or authority to make such statements.

Another reason that pops to mind is that the United States has no incentive to make those kinds of statements.

The United States municipal courts etc.. derive their revenue by getting convictions and collecting federal reserve notes from citizens who have violated one of the trillions of codes or statutes that the US claims to be / has decided is "the law." If the United States started recognizing folks as sovereign beings with rights and remedies in court, those courts would be playing fair. This would not create a very profitable environment, now would it :P Clearly this personal sovereignty concept is mainstream media poison. Wikipedia's 3rd party publishers are considered to be mainstream media. Wikipedia is therefore mainstream media as well. So the POV for this article is actually just fine and dandy. I guess I was wrong for expecting a MSM content publisher to go against their own viewpoint. 50.135.151.101 (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

More interlineation: Baloney. The concept of "personal sovereignty" as promulgated by the people who are the subject of this article is not "mainstream media poison," and Wikipedia is not going against "its own viewpoint." Wikipedia itself does not have a "viewpoint" on the topic. Famspear (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The concept in the United States is that the people are sovereign - not each individual person. That's the people -- as a group.

Individual sovereignty occurs only in the case of nations with a monarchy -- where ONE person (e.g., the King) has sovereignty. That is not what the sovereign citizen movement is talking about.

By definition, anyone who subscribes to the "sovereign citizen" movement in the United States and who acts accordingly in his or her daily life is probably going to be risking engaging in some sort of criminal activity of some sort, even if only minor criminality. There is no sovereign right, for example, to drive without a driver's license, etc.

Famspear, from the perspective of a public official who represents the fictitious entity DBA "The United States", your statements would be considered a legal fact. It's just that not all people are affected by the jurisdiction of the United States. There are situations were the Sovereign Citizens theories are perfectly valid. Also Famspear, you don't even know what a "fringe conspiracy" is, nor do you really know what lies beyond the scope of law you are in favor of. Thanks. 50.135.151.101 (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Interlineation: Yes, all people who are physically located within the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, except for a few people such as foreigners with diplomatic immunity, etc. There is no rule of law that exempts an ordinary person born in the physical confines of the United States of America from the jurisdiction of the United States. Even a foreigner who enters the United States illegally and without diplomatic immunity is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Famspear (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Sovereign Citizen theories are fringe theories. They have no basis in American law. This kind of argument is the equivalent of someone arguing that scientifically, the Moon is somehow made of green cheese. The people who espouse this nonsense are making Green Cheese Arguments. In Wikipedia Neutral Point of View does not involve giving equal weight to fringe theories. Famspear (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, by the way: The statement in the heading of this section to the contrary notwithstanding, this article does not have a "derisive" tone or a "derisive" POV. And further, under the rules of Wikipedia, Neutral Point of View (NPOV) does not involve or require giving equal weight to fringe positions. Famspear (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Never meant to suggest it should be given equal weight. I reiterate: "extra measures are being taken in this article to actively cop a snide tone." It's one thing to make clear in the article that the majority do not espouse the movement and that it has questionable or no legal precedent. It's another thing to write an article full of unnecessary air quotes and clear excessive bias. Imagine an article on communism written by a Middle American in the 1960s. Yeah. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm agreed with Succubus MacAstaroth. I don't claim to be an expert on this area, but I can see several elements of questionable neutrality. For example, take the sentence "Supporters sell instructions explaining how to "free" oneself by filing particular government forms in a particular order using particular wording." Succubus already mentioned air-quoting, this is also a pet-peeve of mine on supposedly reputable articles, and the wording of this is emotive, set up to subtly make us question the content: the repetition of the word "particular", describing supporters "selling" instructions as if it is no more than a greedy money-fuelled society." It's done irritatingly cleverly to the point where the neutrality issue is linguistic.

I'm going to have a go at amending this. If you want to undo my edits then I can't exactly do anything to stop you, but I'm happy to further discuss it. This is not trying to give equal weight to Sovereign Citizenry, as Famspear states, merely substituting neutral language where I feel it is needed. --Futile Crush (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Succubus MacAstaroth: Thanks for the note about "air-quoting". That's a helpful comment on the article itself. And thanks to Futile Crush for those changes. Famspear (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory statements

"Self-described sovereign citizens take the position that they are answerable only to common law and are not subject to any statutes or proceedings at the federal, state or municipal levels, or that they do not recognize U.S. currency and that they are "free of any legal constraints"." "They especially reject most forms of taxation as illegitimate." These 2 statements contradict themselves. They don't see money as legitimate, but they collect it anyway and refuse to pay taxes on it? Also, if they are only subjected to common law, then wouldn't taxes apply since the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has the power to tax? You can't be "only judicial rulings" and then ignore them at the same time. Or am I missing something? No part of this ideology makes any sense to me. This article should be re-written by someone with more knowledge. 174.58.138.200 (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear user at IP174.58.138.200: The description of the ideology doesn't make sense to me either. It doesn't have to make sense to you or to me in order to be a correct statement of the ideology. From a logical, legal and political standpoint, the sovereign citizen theory is nonsensical. Famspear (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The description above is a mash of all ideals the SCM would encompass, much like Republicans are generally Pro-Life. Essentially, common law is precedent or law that is applied by the courts and used as a "common", or normal ruling, as opposed to a Federal Mandate. Not recognizing U.S. Currency is the same as most shop owners not recognizing Monopoly Money. U.S. Currency isn't "money" as much as "Gold" or "Silver" is.. And SC's generally believe that taxation is a violation of due process, to be subjected to fines and have (in many cases ) up to 33 percent of your yearly gross removed before the check can even be cashed. 68.62.5.27 (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

This article should not be in wikipedia

This article should not be in wikipedia. It is completely biased and is based on eliciting fear to suppress a movement. Is there a way to "report" something on wiki? I do not consider myself a staunch supporter of the the movement that is being discussed, but I still respect what is going on and would like to learn more. I have just lost respect for other information on wiki by seeing that this article is published on here. I know that some college professors allow students to use wiki for introductory papers. That says a lot for the possibilities of of this "encyclopedia", but I am completely disgusted by the biased and uneducated stance of this article. --kcase — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.116.212.121 (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What parts do you feel are incorrect? In its present form, this article gives a clear statement of their ideology, while pointing out that (as the commentors just above your note have seen) that the movement's ideology is based on a farrago of falsehood and misinterpretation. The article also makes clear that the movment has been used by persons of ill-will to mislead and injure many innocent people. While we strive valiantly to maintain a proper neutral point-of-view on all topics, our content guidelines also clarify that we should not inadvertently or deliberately lend credibility to "fringe" theories which deserve no such attention. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear user at IP199.116.212.121: Please identify the specific words in the article that you feel are "biased." And please identify the specific words that you feel are "uneducated." Please identify the specific words that you feel are "based on eliciting fear to suppress a movement". Famspear (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This discussion page is a fantastic demonstration of how Wikipedia really operates. Thank you, Famspear. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Famspear (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

POV Prevents Article from Beling Useful

After reading about the "Sovereign Citizen Movement" in a CNN article, I decided to do what I always do and come to Wikipedia to learn more about the history and the ideas behind the movement. However, unlike most Wikipedia articles, the article is merely an article blatantly editorializing against whatever this movement is. I suggest that the article be re-written / re-organized by someone familiar with the topic to unbiasedly explain the topic, and that additional sections be added to explain the criticisms with the concept. The article isn't very informative as it is written and organized. Tim Neely 18:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tneely (talk • contribs)

Which CNN article? I do note that the article has nothing in it about recent concerns about its potential as a domestic threat, eg "The FBI said members of the movement have killed six police officers since 2000. A shootout in West Memphis, Ark., in 2010 left four people dead, including two officers in one of the more deadly clashes."We are focusing our efforts because of the threat of violence," said Stuart R. McArthur, a deputy assistant director in the FBI's Counterterrorism Division. Studies by the Homeland Security Department and the National Counterterrorism Center listed the sovereign citizen movement alongside Islamic extremists and white supremacists as major threats to the United States, the Times reported. More than 100,000 people have aligned themselves with the movement, said the Southern Poverty Law center, which tracks domestic terrorists and hate groups. [3]

ABC Nightline Broadcast on 3/8/12 for Citation Needed Sources

The ABC Nightline broadcast of March 8th provides documentation for comments marked "citation needed." Csarkwrite (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)csarkwrite

Joseph Stack

An occasional problem I have noticed with WP's policies regarding sources, is the the assumption of organizational reliability that overrides the question of whether the specific source has bothered to support its claim. In this case, there is the assumption that ABC News is reliable when it claims in passing that Joseph Stack was a SC. You read Stack's suicide letter here, and I challenge to to identify where he relies on the esoteric legal theories of the SCM. Stack said that he was being screwed by the tax laws. He did not say that the laws had no authority over him, but argued at length from the assumption that they did. The belief that one is a victim of class warfare does not make someone part of the SCM. Citing the tax laws to explain a political grievance does not make someone part of the SCM. I am removing the mention of Stack from the article. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear IP 24.22.217.162: As Wikipedia editors, I'm not sure that we're supposed to be demanding that the source "bother to support its claim." If ABC News identified Stack as a member of the Sovereign Citizen movement, then that's what ABC did. ABC may be correct, or it may be wrong. We don't know what information ABC used in concluding that it could make that statement -- and that's often true of many statements from many reliable sources. I would argue that as Wikipedia editors we are not generally supposed to delete source material merely because we don't know what "support" the source had for its claim. If a source is considered to be a reliable source, generally that's sufficient. However, I'm not going to revert your edit unless some sort of consensus develops about it. And if someone locates another reliable source that says that Stack was a member of the SC movement, that might change the picture. Thanks for your input.... Famspear (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

PS: If we think about it, we may realize that many current news items published by ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, BBC, etc., etc., do not include statements where the news organization "bothers to support" what it "claims" in the news report. In fact, major news organizations often decline to name their own sources; they simply state that the information is from a "reliable source" or "a well-informed" source" or "a high level source in the Pentagon" or something along that line. Making such a statement in a news report instead of naming the source is the functional equivalent of saying "you're just going to have to trust us on this."

Famspear, you stated "As Wikipedia editors, I'm not sure that we're supposed to be demanding that the source bother to support its claim." You really don't mind if one of your sources is deliberately telling lies? You'd rather just assume that they are? How far in to the world of fiction could that attitude take Wikipedia? Would you as an editor feel any better or worse if you found out you'd been referencing lies? You seem to be at a very high level of editorial efficiency so that statement shocked me just a bit. Thanks. 50.135.151.101 (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Further, some pieces of data in news reports are not accompanied by any specific statement at all with regard to the source. The fact that we as Wikipedia editors cannot see the "support" for what the source is reporting -- which is often the case -- is not necessarily objectionable from the standpoint of Wikipedia policy on the use of the source material. Famspear (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It IS however objectionable to anyone that wanted to learn something meaningful and factual. Thanks. 50.135.151.101 (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with our clearly saying, "ABC News reported that Stack was a SCM member" and footnoting that report. Thus, we are not saying he was or wasn't: we are reporting what somebody else said, for them to take for what it's worth. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

POV is the nicest term for this article

I am not a member of a "Soverign Citizes" group, I heard a talk radio program the other night where the commentator spoke about it. I was amazed, as I had never heard of such a thing before and went to the website he gave to find out more. Then I came to Wiki to find out what was written here on the subject. The only way to describe this article is to compare it to a hypothetical article written about the US Congress that spends 75% of it's space enumerating the cases where members of Congress have had sexual relationhips with underage pages of either sex, and only 25% actually describing the function of Congress, and the History of what it has done. You need to seperate the crimes of individual tax evaders and criminals who claim soverignty when faced with a prison term, from those who are writing coherent, albeit treasonous, articles on the subject. I humbly suggest that the editors of this article scrap it, and start from scratch. Perhaps if you go to www.therepublicfortheunitedstates.org you might find out the core beliefs and historical perspective of an organized group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.106.111 (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd use the term "treasonous", which has a narrow and specific meaning under the Constitution of the United States (which these clowns don't understand), to describe their writings. The sad fact is that the antics of these people, collectively and as induhviduals, are the only notable things about them, since their theories are not based on any coherent set of philosophies known to political science or to history. We find ourselves forced to write about what this movement and its adherents has/have done which is in fact notable: which is mostly crimes, violent and non-violent. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the Mormons and Scientologists have as little credibility, and as much crime to answer for as the Sovereignty groups, and yet when I read the Wikipedia articles on them I find that their beliefs and history are reasonably covered before the dirt on their many sins is dug up. All I'm saying is that this group either deserves the same treatment, or the whole article should be d/c'd rather than reading like the National Inquirer or Paris Hilton's rag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.106.111 (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying I entirely disagree with you; but except as necessary in the course of a ruling by a court dismissing their appeals, nobody much has written on these theories, because they are so far out on the fringe. I'd be delighted if someone found a good item-by-item explanation and refutation of the various inchoate claims these folks make; but the only place you generally find them discussed is in various blogs and mock-the-wacko websites, which fail WP:RS. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, my favorite mocking-the-wackos website is Quatloos! This is their sub-forum for monitoring the antics of "sovereign citizens"; but it's not a reliable source, although it is a goldmine of links to new reports of their mishaps. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur with what Orangemike has written. There are some mainstream news reports on the activities of "sovereign citizens" (more and more of them lately, I guess) but, unfortunately, there isn't much of anything in the fundamental principles or theories of the "movement's" adherents that is legally valid. Naturally, therefore, an article on sovereign citizens is going to look the way this one looks. By contrast, although I am not a member of the Mormon or Scientology groups, I would say that the fundamental purposes, theories, and activities of those groups are not based on something that has absolutely no legal or political validity.

By the way, I am a regular contributor at the Quatloos forum on tax protesters, "sovereign citizens", and other scams. Our main purpose at Quatloos is to expose scams -- but we do have fun, and there is definitely some mockery going on there. Very interesting forum! Famspear (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

the sovereignty of citizens

i have seen a lot of hate both from and towards this movement. i would hope wiki would be more unbiased, this, and other related articles are defaming and fear mongering on the subject and further put people at risk.

consider simply, all citizens of the united states, are sovereign. all of them. not some some, not a certain class or race or a few that file certain paperwork, but that all, every single 300-million of them, are sovereign, both collectively and individually.

when one understands this, sovereign citizen is by no means an oxymoron.

some people may declare the title or phrase, to reflect a personal belief or an assertion of independence.

the actions of a few, criminal extremists, are defaming other people. these articles further that defamation and need to be reworded to better reflect the nature of a sovereign citizen vs a sovereign extremist.

I would say, the category needs to be split, with a statement for sovereign citizens that states, 'the view held that americans hold sovereignty over themselves and their government'; thus moving the current articles, to the category, sovereign extremists, with the note that these people are extreme believers and criminals of the sentiment, who corrupt the notion through misunderstanding or intentional fraud.

72.202.138.8 (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Text dump moved from article

The following material was dumped in the article, and has been removed:

"Sovereignty" is defined as: "The possession of sovereign power; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and Its administration" http://thelawdictionary.org/sovereignty/. In America, the people are sovereigns, not the government Juliard v. Greeman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884)http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=110&invol=421 Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958)|url=https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/356/356.US.44.44.html To further reiterate this fact, the Declaration of Independence says, "government is subject to the consent of the governed.".

In 1913, sovereignty and allodial title http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title appear to have been unlawfully taken from the American people by the Privately Owned http://www.dailypaul.com/77899/the-primary-owners-of-the-federal-reserve-bank-are 'Federal Reserve Bank' via 'hypothecation' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothecation}} speech in Congress in The Bankruptcy of The United States United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303. Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House http://www.babelmagazine.com/issue66/uscorporation.html the 'Federal Reserve Act' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act Speech in Congress in The Bankruptcy of The United States United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303. Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House http://www.babelmagazine.com/issue66/uscorporation.html http://divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/1026-financial-tyranny-final?showall=1&limitstart=

Fortunately however, all unconstitutional legislation is null and void and it is a crime for any member of Americas government to enforce such legislation Constitution for United States of America|location=Amendment 14 Norton v. Shelby County in the State of Tennessee, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=118&invol=425 LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH COMMISSION v. FISCHER, Supreme Court of Kentucky, April 26, 2012|url=http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ky-supreme-court/1599603.html Constitution for United States of America|location=Article VI.

Furthermore, any member of government convicted of even a misdemeanor shall be removed from office Constitution for United States of America|location=Article II, Section IV.

All Americans have equal rights Constitution for United States of America|location=Amendment 14 to cite, arrest, and prosecute any person, party, or member of government or military which they can prove with verifiable facts has committed a crime. This also means that Americans have the right to self-defense against an unlawful arrest, and to protect others from unlawful arrest, even when that other is consenting to such Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910. State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260 State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100 Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621 Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

Additionally, the federal government has no authority or jurisdiction over the people in the States, but only in the District of Columbia "The law of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government." http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/152/211/case.html .

We can discuss the problems with this material below, perhaps beginning with the fake quotation. Famspear (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, the "quote" that begins with "The people are sovereign...." appears to be fake. It does not appear in the text of Juliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884). And it's "Greenman," not "Greeman." And it's "Julliard," not "Juliard."

Second the "quote" ("government is subject to the consent of the governed") supposedly from the Declaration of Independence does not actually appear in the Declaration of Independence. It appears to be a paraphrase, not a quote.

Third, this is not an article about the legal concept of sovereignty. This is an article about something called the "sovereign citizen movement." The concept of sovereignty as promulgated by the members of the movement is not the same as the actual legal and political concept of sovereignty.

More to come. Famspear (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Indented linethe thing I want to point out here, is that there is a difference between sovereign citizens, and a sovereign citizen movement. Not everyone who claims sovereignty is part of a movement, or violent, or believes a lot of the misinformation. it is dangerous to perpetuate a link between the two. its like saying all members of a religion are prone to violence. there needs to be a difference between, sovereign citizens, and the sovereign citizen movement.--72.202.138.8 (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The statement: "In 1913, sovereignty and allodial title appear to have been unlawfully taken from the American people by the Privately Owned 'Federal Reserve Bank' via 'hypothecation'" is gibberish. The source given for this is the "dailypaul" -- which is hardly a reliable source for this purpose. This looks like something that a member of the sovereign citizen movement might say or write. Perhaps this gibberish could be re-added to the article, provided that a better source could be found to show that this statement represents a common belief of members of the movement. Famspear (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

"Babelmagazine" and "divine cosmos" are not reliable sources for purposes of Wikipedia. Famspear (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The statement above -- that unconstitutional legislation is null and void and that it is a crime for any member of "Americas government" to enforce such legislation Constitution for United States of America -- is not found in the text of the cited case, Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886). There is a passage in the text that includes the phrase "null and void", wherein the U.S. Supreme Court was quoting from the text of another court in another case, but the passage says nothing about it being a "crime" for any member of "Americas government" to enforce unconstitutional legislation. More explanation later. Famspear (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Article II, section IV (meaning, section 4) of the U.S. Constitution does not say that any member of government convicted of even a misdemeanor shall be removed from office. Here's what it says:

"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The term "conviction" here means conviction in the impeachment process -- that is, conviction by the United States Senate after an impeachment by the House of Representatives. This in no way applies to every member of the United States government; it applies only to the President, Vice President and CIVIL OFFICERS. That's a very small percentage of all "members" of the federal government. Famspear (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

And, no, not all Americans have "equal rights" to "prosecute" someone for committing a crime. None of the cited cases stand for such a silly proposition. That's typical "sovereign citizen" nonsense. Generally, criminal prosecutions can be conducted only by a legally constituted governmental authority, such as a district attorney, assistant district attorney, etc. There is no law that allows private citizens to have their own courts or to conduct their own criminal prosecutions, no matter how "sovereign" they feel they may be. Famspear (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Indented line No, but all citizens can arrest any other person and take them before a judge or magistrate to be prosecuted. Of course doing this without good cause opens that person to charges for unlawful arrest...

Rqpaine (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The ridiculous statement that the federal government has no authority or jurisdiction over the people in the States, but only in the District of Columbia is not found, either in quote or in paraphrase, in the text of the Caha case that was cited above. The statement: "The law of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government" is found in Caha -- but it refers to THOSE MATTERS. To know what "those matters" are, you have to actually read the text of Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211 (1894).

This kind of material is an example of why Wikipedia has a rule prohibiting "original research." This text dump is an example of the worst kind of original research -- making ridiculous statements, using fake quotes, using real quotes taken out of context ... in short, citing sources for propositions not promulgated by the sources. Famspear (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Question, why is the SC movement associated with 'far-right' politics?

It seems weird that a group that essentialy want to remove themselves from the political process are labeled as far-right. It would seem that they don't really have a political underpinning. It would seem that is more of an opinion.

Love the article though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dperry4930 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Most dangerous terrorist organization in the US

Story referencing government study which finds this to be the most dangerous terrorist organization on domestic soil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDpA9JChNf4

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.85.113 (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutral? No.

This article is unbelievably biased. It does not even pretend to be unbiased. The article also needs a real cleaning. It cites way too many cases and most of them are not really noteworthy. Another thing is too much weight is given to the views of the State; for example almost every single cited case ends with a finding of "frivolous" but I have yet to find a legal explanation as to why... What laws were cited during these trials? Orasis (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the ariticle is presented with a neutral point of view, as that concept is defined in Wikipedia.

There may or may not be bias in the source materials. Bias in the source materials, however, is not a violation of the Wikipedia rule on Neutral Point of View. The sources are allowed to be biased.

Regarding your comment about a "legal explanation" for why a particular argument is frivolous: It is not the responsibility of the courts, when they render decisions, to explain why a frivolous position is frivolous. Indeed, the whole point is that a frivolous position is not worthy of serious consideration.

It is not the responsibility of Wikipedia editors, in a Wikipedia article, to explain or justify a court decision that a particular argument in court is legally frivolous.

It is, however, the responsibility of every litigant in court (at least, in the United States) to know when an argument is legally frivolous, and it's everyone's legal responsibility not to use frivolous arguments. In the United States, everyone is charged with responsibility for knowing the law.

The article is presented with a Neutral Point of View. That does not mean "lack of bias." That means that Wikipedia presents the material without taking a position in the article as to who is right and who is wrong.

Neutral Point of View does not mean giving equal weight to all sides. If you get the impression from the article, as written, that people who espouse the kinds of arguments described in the article are criminals and wackos, then you are getting the right picture -- and you are getting the picture not from a violation of Wikipedia rules, but rather from the weight of the authority as described in the court cases. In a court of law, "sovereign citizen" arguments are the functional equivalent of arguing, in a convention of scientists, that The Moon is made of Green Cheese. Famspear (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's a little background:

"Frivolous. Unworthy of serious attention; trivial [ . . .] inappropriately silly". American Heritage Dictionary, p. 535, Houghton Mifflin Co. (2d Coll. Ed. 1985).

"Frivolous. of little weight or importance [ . . . ] lacking in seriousness [ . . . ] irresponsibly self-indulgent". Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 461, G. & C. Merriam Co. (8th Ed. 1976).

Here's a famous quote from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the Crain case (a federal tax case), on why the courts often do not explain, in the texts of their rulings, the precise reasons why frivolous arguments are frivolous:

We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit. The constitutionality of our income tax system — including the role played within that system by the Internal Revenue Service and the Tax Court — has long been established.

---from Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (bolding added).

Again, the whole point is that, by definition, a frivolous argument is not worthy of serious attention. Famspear (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree of the extreme bias and poor case studies... it is highly one sided... there is no mention of the sources that provide proof that things like licenses are a privilege imposed upon the state and that they are all commercial in nature. There is no mention of the many cases of tax discharges that were completed and accepted by the government. There is no mention of the supreme court cases that support the fact that the 14th amendment was not ratified. There is no mention of HJR-192 which states that all labor and property of the American people will be the backing for the Private Credit that is issued by the Private Federal Reserve Bank. There is no mention of the constitution Article 1 section 10 and each state such as Oregon constitution article 11 section 1 concerning the issue that the current monetary system is not constitutional. But it is what we have. There are all associated with the Redemption concern that has substantial Legal documentation that supports the belief. There are also state senators (Georgia) that have stated that the licensing laws and the voluntary forcing of turning your automobile over to the state is in fact turning a right into a privilege... Tn supreme court case witness testimony from the DMV. Also, a law was advanced that does away with license and plates in Georgia recently... of course it went nowhere but it was a state senator that created the law. The point here is that this subject in all aspects is highly biased against the founding fathers basis of the sovereignty of the individuals as mentioned in the anti-federalist papers... The IRS that was created not by the US congress but by an act of the dept. of treasury. This is documented fact... It is not mentioned that the BAR is nothing more than an "association without standing" any more than a country club... that is documented fact as well... the selection of the so called source material is specifically biased and every write-up on the incidents page is supporting that negativity, where are the opposing sources and incidents (as there are many to select from). In fact it is very simple to find UCC and IRM references that support the sovereign point of reference and claim... for example there are many district court cases that support the claim of there being two classes of citizens... I also refer you to the "Trading with the Enemy Act" as well as the "Buck act"... If you look at title 28 sub section 3002 (10) and (15) you will find that the government code lists the United States as being a Corporation... it also states that a Us Citizen and a "Person" is in the same category as that of a corporation... If you look up these words in a Law Dictionary such as Blacks you will understand and see how the government changes the meaning of words. If you research the money issue, you will find that the Federal Reserve is no more Federal than the Federal Reserve... Of the IRS, a supreme court ruling stated that the IRS was not a government agency... Walker Todd a top ex-IRS agent testified and signed an affidavit (case#03.047448-cz Michigan)that there is no lawful constitutional money and only "Private Credit." The issues of redemption was recently tested in NC case Criminal Docket #1:08CR55-V Kathy Rayt Wahler, Edward William Wahler, and Lewis Vincent Huges... counts 1-20 25 27-32 for mail fraud: not guilty, Counts to defraud several creditors and the Federal Reserve by submitting (alleged) fictitious documents... etc... all charges were dropped 1:08CR55-RLV ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.91.140.215 (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, that is total baloney.

Just a few examples: There are no U.S. Supreme Court cases that support the silly argument that that the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not ratified. HJR-192 (which is House Joint Resolution 192) does not state that all labor and property of the American people will be the backing for the Private Credit issued by the Private Federal Reserve Bank. Nothing in Article 1 section 10 of the U.S. Constitution (or in any state constitution) makes the current monetary system unconstitutional. And no court has ever ruled that the IRS is not a government agency (I know exactly the case that you are referring to, and the court made no such ruling).

Sorry, but what you are describing is frivolous gibberish found all over the internet. None of this is new. Wikipedia has been targeted with this kind of nonsense off and on for years. This has already been covered in Wikipedia talk page discussions -- over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Here are the basic rules in Wikipedia: WP:NOR; WP:NPOV; WP:V. Famspear (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Financial Scheme Promoters

Sovereign Citizens are NOT financial scheme promoters. There is noting about financial fraud that goes with Sovereign Citizen ideology. Quite the opposite. There ARE financial schemers that especially prey on Sovereign Citizens, but this is true for every group of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.83.18 (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Some of the most visible "sovereign citizens" upon closer inspection turn out to be hucksters promoting their particular financial scheme, with kits and instructions they sell for hundreds or thousands of dollars which they pocket until jailed or otherwise stopped. This article enumerates several examples. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, one of my favorites is James Timothy Turner, who is mentioned in the article. Among other things, he was stupid enough to file a false claim in U.S. Bankruptcy Court. A smart robber would at least wear a mask to try to hide his or her identity. By openly filing a false claim in a federal court, a claim that was easily determined to be false, Turner actually handed the prosecutors the evidence needed to convict him. (He was convicted of other crimes as well.) As noted in the article, he is in federal prison now, and will be staying there for a long time. Famspear (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Validity of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

I find it peculiar that anyone would use this group as a source of quality information. They are far-left leaning and are ideologue24.38.41.20 (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)s.

In Wikipedia, sources are allowed to be "far-left leaning" or "far-right leaning," and they are allowed to be "ideologue." Wikipedia has a rule about using reliable sources. However, the mere fact that a particular source is extremely biased (for example, politically biased toward liberalism or conservatism) is a separate concept.

Wikipedia also has a rule regarding Neutral Point of View, or "NPOV." However, NPOV does not mean that the source itself has to be "neutral" or "unbiased." NPOV means that Wikipedia must present the information from various sources (some of which may be strongly biased one way and others of which may be strongly biased in the opposite way) without Wikipedia itself taking sides. In simplified terms, this means (for example) that Wikipedia itself does not say that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is "right" or that the SPLC is "wrong." Famspear (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Example: MSNBC has a reputation for being strongly liberal, and Fox News has a reputation for being strongly conservative. However, despite the strong bias or alleged bias of these sources, both are considered reliable sources for purposes of Wikipedia. Famspear (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Further, a source that is not strongly biased might be considered to be not a reliable source. The lack of bias does not necessarily make a source reliable. Famspear (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a really bad article

This article is terribly biased and the constant accusations of racism are a little much. I think it's fair to say that every political movement, even the established parties of the United States, have their fair share of racists but when writing about other movements little to no attention is given to them [racists] so why so much concentration on them in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.232.41 (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Mostly because the practitioners of this particular cult (with one group of outliers) pretend that the non-white people recognized under the post-Civil War constitutional amendments are second-class citizens, unlike the white "sovereign citizens". --Orange Mike | Talk 18:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 216.246.232.41: No, the article itself is not biased. And no, the article does not contain "constant accusations" of racism. You're over-stating your case. The people who adhere to the "sovereign citizen" ideas reported by the sources cited in the article are way, way, waaaayyy out on the fringe. As one court stated, these kinds of beliefs have no conceivable validity in American law. The article does report on what the reliable sources say. If the reliable sources say that some adherents of the so-called "sovereign citizen" philosophies have racist beliefs, the article itself does not become "biased" merely by reporting what the sources say. Neutral point of view does not mean absence of points of view.

Further, the sources themselves are allowed to be biased. That might be what you are "picking up" on. Famspear (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, in the article, there are very few references to racism. Mainly, the Richard McDonald material and the Greenstreet material might be considered to reflect evidence of some "racist" views by some adherents of the "sovereign citizen" nonsense. You completely over-stated your case. Famspear (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I went back and counted about 32 or 33 cases cited in the article -- counting Richard McDonald as a "case" (even though it's not a court case), I come up with only 3 instances where race could rationally be considered to have even been addressed -- namely in the Richard McDonald material, the Greenstreet material, and the Stoecklin material. That's three instances out of about 32 or 33 cases mentioned in the article. Famspear (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

one question

aren't driver's licences issued by states (not federal)? T-303 (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yup. So are voter registrations, marriage licenses, etc. Call it an example of the internal contradictions of their beliefs. Ravensfire (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope, not a contradiction. Sovereign citizens do not believe in any of those forms of registration. Neither do I. Are your minds blown? Get off this page you haters, wtf are you doing here anyways? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.83.18 (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Sovereign Citizen Movement

This is addressed to BethNaught. The article was changed because the information provided was not PROPERLY sourced. It was only sourced to specious articles that made claims about what Mr. Bundy might have said. Dispositive evidence needs to be provided - or leave the claims OUT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.1.144.162 (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The part about using sovereign citizen language to beckon supporters is a direct quote from the Guardian - a reliable source. This source also supports the other bits you removed. In any case, the article never claimed that he explicitly calls himself a sovereign citizen. The article did claim that he called himself a sovereign citizen of Nevada, to which claim I have added a {{citation needed}} tag, and will try now to find a source.. BethNaught (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the word sovereign from "sovereign citizen of the State of Nevada" and added a supporting ref for the amended info from the Guardian. I believe that the content you objected to is now sufficiently supported by sources? BethNaught (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed...

I deleted,

"Many members of the sovereign citizen movement believe that the U.S. Government is illegitimate.^[3] JJ MacNab, who writes for Forbes about anti-government extremism, describes the sovereign citizen movement as consisting of individuals who believe that the County Sheriff is the most powerful law enforcement officer in the country, with authority superior to that of any federal agent, elected official, or local law-enforcement.^[4] "

because it is simply not true. The sovereign citizen movement has existed for long before the Cliven Bundy standoff, and Bundy does not speak for all sovereign citizens. I have NEVER heard a sovereign citizen claim, "The US Government is illegitimate," what they say is, "laws that conflict with the Constitution are illegitimate." In fact, that is TRUE. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and anything that conflicts with it is null and void, as per the Constitution..

I also deleted the part about the SPLC, for the same reason as the guy above said ^^^^^^^^. They are the ideological opposite of sovereign citizens, who claim that people who promote the 10th Amendment are "racists." They should have no business in defining sovereign citizens, just the same as racists should have no business defining or writing the wiki for the SPLC.

I tried editing this page multiple times, and have been subverted by the moderator every time. I got a message that told me to "explain why" I deleted something "in the talk section." Guess what? That's the fist thing I did, before I ever got that message. If my edits are continually deleted I will notify other Wikipedia mods. Whoever mods this page is a failure at allowing only reasonable, unbiased facts in this wiki. Do you let anyone else's enemies write their wikis? Why does the SPLC get a front and center spot at defining the Sovereign Citizen movement? Why do you assume they know better than the sovereign citizens themselves what a sovereign citizen is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.83.18 (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 70.197.83.18: Wikipedia does not have moderators. Wikipedia does have administrators, but everyone is pretty much subject to the same rules in terms of editing articles.

Further, the article is not written by "enemies" sovereign citizens. Let's get real.

The SPLC is a reliable source. That does not necessarily mean that the people at the SPLC are "unbiased." Further -- and this may be difficult to understand at first -- a reliable source is not required to be unbiased. Neutral Point of View does not mean eliminating bias. Neutral Point of View means presenting reliable sources -- even biased sources -- in a way so that Wikipedia itself does not take a position that this viewpoint is correct or that viewpoint is wrong. In short, sources are allowed to be biased, and the bias can be presented in Wikipedia articles -- as long as the presentation itself is done with a Neutral Point of View, taking into consideration that fringe positions are not according equal weight with other positions. That's how any encyclopedia works (or at least should work).

And no, the question is not whether the SPLC "knows better" than the "sovereign citizens" what a sovereign citizen "is."

SPLC is just one of the sources in the article. People who espouse "sovereign citizen" viewpoints are being sent to prison on a regular basis. Do you know why? Because the whole sovereign citizen philosophy is based on theories that people are not subject to various laws to which those people are indeed subject When people commit crimes by breaking laws which they mistakenly believe they are not subject to, some of those people are going to get caught and sent to jail. That, to some significant degree, is why the article looks the way it looks. The material in the article is neutrally presented. The "problem" (if you will ) is not "bias" on the part of the SPLC or Wikipedia editors; it's the "sovereign citizens" themselves who keep doing stupid things, to themselves and to others. The article simply reflects the reality of what is going on, as reported by reliable sources. Famspear (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way: You as a Wikipedia editor cannot remove material because you personally claim that the material is "false." Forbes material such the MacNab material that you wanted to delete is considered to be from a reliable source. Reliable sources may be right or wrong. But you as an editor cannot remove material just because you personally claim that the material is false or incorrect. Indeed, to allow such a thing would be to invite total chaos. As a Wikipedia editor, YOU are not a "source" for Wikipedia (neither am I or any other editor), and you are not a judge of the "truth" or "correctness" of material from a reliable source. You can add material from reliable sources, but you cannot delete material from reliable sources merely because you believe the material is incorrect. Famspear (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Another thing: Nothing in the article implies that the sovereign citizen movement started with Cliven Bundy, so I'm not sure what you were driving at. Indeed, this article existed long before anyone had ever heard of Cliven Bundy (who only came into the news this year). And part of the problem with many people who adhere to "sovereign citizen" nonsense beliefs is indeed that they do not understand that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land -- and that they don't really understand the U.S. Constitution. Misunderstandings about the Tenth Amendment are examples. And yes, some "sovereign citizens" do falsely claim that the local county sheriff somehow is a higher authority than the federal government. The Wikipedia article, when read in its entirety, gives an overview of some typical "sovereign citizen" beliefs. Famspear (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You can't tell me what to do. I am a free man and I am not subject to your Wikipedia laws!!!!11 121.44.146.90 (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately, we don't have laws here. Phew! Crisis averted! We do have various policies that need to be followed to allow groups of people to produce a high quality encyclopedia. Edits that don't follow those policies can and will be reverted. Ravensfire (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No, no laws here, but there are some Wikipedia guidelines, etc. Personally, I wish we had a Wikipedia super-secret double-naught spy decoder ring, cape, and secret handshake -- but I suppose it is not to be..... Famspear (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

References

^ "The Antarctic Climate". Antarctic Connection. Retrieved 6/10/2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
^ neutrality disputes "Neutral Point of View". Wikipedia. Retrieved 6/11/2011. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
^ "Context Matters: the Cliven Bundy Standoff". Forbes.com. Retrieved 2 May 2014.
^ MacNab, JJ. "Context Matters: The Cliven Bundy Standoff -- Part 3". Forbes. Retrieved 6 May 2014.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2014

This edit request to Sovereign citizen movement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I have tried numerous times to fix this article. It reads as if it was written by someone who hates the sovereign citizen movement. It is full of inaccuracies, and now it has been locked.

If you cannot accept the recent edits, at the very least you could defer to a previous edit, say, from a few years ago, before the more recent edits, which have been largely coming out of the Cliven Bundy standoff. Cliven Bundy was NOT a sovereign citizen. He had many beliefs which were in line with the movement, but he was not a sovereign citizen.

How about this edit, from 2007:

"The Sovereign Citizen Movement is a political movement in the United States which grew out of claims concerning government abuses of citizens' rights. Other names for "sovereign citizens" include "freemen" (see Montana Freemen) and "common law citizens".

This movement is based on theories that U.S. citizens are either "Fourteenth Amendment citizens" (who are subject to the federal and state laws and taxes) or "sovereign citizens", who are subject only to common law or "constitutional law" (or both), not to statutory law. Under these theories, sovereign citizens are exempt from any laws with which they do not agree. No court has ever upheld these arguments[1] (see Tax protester arguments). The Uniform Commercial Code plays an important part in these legal theories.

"Sovereign citizens" often avoid using zip codes, and refuse to hold social security cards or driver's licenses.

Some African-American groups have adopted Sovereign Citizen beliefs,[2] which sometimes include a distinction between the Corporation and the Government, which (under these theories) no longer operates in the traditional sense. "

Sovcitmov (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want that material to be added you need to provide reliable sources that can be used as citations to support these statements. Cwobeel (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

[1] "The Antarctic Climate". Antarctic Connection. Retrieved 6/10/2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[2] utrality disputes "Neutral Point of View". Wikipedia. Retrieved 6/11/2011. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[3] "Context Matters: the Cliven Bundy Standoff". Forbes.com. Retrieved 2 May 2014.

[ForbesIII-4] MacNab, JJ. "Context Matters: The Cliven Bundy Standoff -- Part 3". Forbes. Retrieved 6 May 2014.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]