Talk:Sovereign citizen movement

Miscontrued victories

Often cases involving a sovereign citizen get dismissed for practical reasons like cases do every day, but instead the sovereign citizen attributes this to outsmarting the court with thier rehearsed scripts. Maybe that should be added after the part in the article about it never being successful in court. 99.149.237.197 (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that tells us about this happening? HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I think what they are more accurately referring to are instances where a case will get adjourned, for short recess because the SovCits and their supporters are making a scene, and the SovCit will huff and puff like they have had a victory and then depart prior to the resumption of the hearing which never goes in the SovCits favour. The SovCit have literally never won a case using their pseudo-legal tactics. It's not worth putting in because it's not notable and I doubt there are any reliable sources. TarnishedPath^talk 02:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This definitely happened with the Cliven Bundy case, we had a discussion about it before (should be in the Archives). But I don't know of any reliable sources specifically calling it out as a SovCit tactic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

So, I just want to anecdotally back up what the IP is saying -- SovCits do indeed trumpet otherwise unremarkable dismissals or declinations of prosecution as somehow 'proving' their system works. It was especially common in decades past for them 'win' on minor or ministerial matters simply through bluster and sheer jackassery. That was largely to do with unfamiliarity with the movement and an assumption of good faith that is no longer present. Of course, none of this comes anywhere close to verifiability for Wiki purposes. I thought I recalled something along these lines within Alberta Chief Justice Rooke's thorough examination in Meads v Meads, but upon a quick scan I am not finding anything. So, to the IP, I say I absolutely agree with you, but at present I don't see a basis for inclusion in the article. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM TarnishedPathtalk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm sorry, but if you really do your homework and know what you are talking about, the 14th Amendment was never ratified as a 10th of the states did not agree to it. In addition, people living now live under the US Corporation of the United States and not the Organic Constitution. Your birth certificate, social security number, driver's license #, any contacts you sign. The "lot#" of your home, which you falsely believe you own, is actually "lease of tenant" and not owned by you. You can pay off the brick and mortar, but you can't buy the land. It's "leased" to you. The gvt isn't there to protect the people. It's there to protect the Corporation. If you can't find what you are looking for when you actually do research, let me know. I'll help you, but your entire article is false. I'll no longer be supporting Wikipedia financially because I see the narrative that we are all free on here and we are not. We are the collateral for the trillions owed by the federal gvt loans. You are not a person. You are a number. I'm not radical. I don't go around yelling to all to become freeman and Free Woman, but I at least know our history. You sir, do not. You also claimed that BAR is supposedly the "British accredidation registry" That's a fact, not an opinion. It's not made up. Even our Congress uses "Parliamentary rules". We no more pulled away from the British than Canada did. We are in fact part of their system with lies told to all of us from the beginning of learning all that we thought was correct in school. I bid you good day, Sir. Pamela562 (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC) The views you present here are historically false, legally nonsensical, and utterly irrational. Nothing operates as you seem to think it does. Incidental similarity of terms (e.g., "parliamentary procedure") is not, in fact, a trenchant analysis of anything in any way. I find it ironic that what sovereign citizens seem to miss entirely is the fundamental notion of common law (which they honor in name only): that the law exists as an ongoing dialectic between government and its citizens. What a law says is of course important, but how it has been interpreted is also very important. I fear that your understanding of these issues is much like your financial support for Wikipedia: a snare and delusion. Find professionals you trust. Ask them. You are badly misled. That said, good luck to you. Dumuzid (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Suggested new edit from today's news

In 2023, Taylor James Johnatakis was tried and convicted on a number of felony charges related to his participation in the January 6, 2021 coup attempt in Washington, DC. Johnatakis made a number of sovereign citizen arguments as part of his defense, which the judge characterized as "bullshit" and "gobbledegook" ""January 6 rioter found guilty after judge calls defence argument 'gobbledegook'"". 24.62.176.13 (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)