Talk:Redemption movement

Web Pages

www.freedom-school.com/admiralty-special-maritime-exposed.pdf

Widespread

In reference to this theory being "widespread," that's hard to prove because I don't think the newspapers or academic journals usually find it worth writing about since they consider it a crackpot scheme, and it gets laughed out of court. But I have known a lot of people who talked about and believed in this theory. It's kinda similar to pseudoscientific or supernatural beliefs like astrology, except this pertains to the realm of law rather than the spirit world. Tisane (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are some outside links that might indicate how widespread this is (with opinionated explanations):

The American's Sovereign Bulletin - Leading publication promoting sovereign citizen tactics, popular within prisons. Published in Central Point, Ore.

Citizens of the American Constitution - Organization that instructs clients in the wording of the sovereign citizen movement’s nonsensical legal pleadings.

Civil Rights Task Force - Group hosts law seminars for sovereign citizens. They developed their own law enforcement agency with fake identification cards, badges, and raid jackets. Based in Puyallup, Wash.

Embassy of Heaven - Markets bogus license plates and other vehicle documents. It was evicted from its former location for nonpayment of local taxes. Based in Stayton, Ore.

Greater Ministries International - Central Florida-based church run by anti-government extremists. The leaders received prison sentences for running a massive pyramid investment scheme, stealing nearly $500 million.

Montana Freemen - Christian Patriot Group that became high-profile in 1996 when members engaged in a prolonged armed standoff with FBI agents. They conceived their own system of government with common law courts in Jordan, Mont.

Republic of Texas - The original Republic of Texas split into several competing factions in the late-1990s, and then reunified in 2002. The “President” of the Republic of Texas claims Texas is an independent country.

The Seize Liberty Network - Active in marketing common law trusts and redemption products over the Internet and at seminars throughout the country. Based in Greenville, S.C.

Washitaw Nation - African-American Moorish group known for forging license plates and vehicle documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.91.114.239 (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The SPLC pins the number of adherents at 300,000. [1][2] Personally, it sounds to me like the result of a very poorly-worded survey (I would have expected 100,000 at most), but I would still include it. And I just might if no one adds this before I find the time to. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The SPLC has no idea what they are talking about, but since they have somehow become reliable 3rd party sources, now their worthless opinions must be dealt with. What a shame. Visitor10001 (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

In the news

heres a link to a story the refers to this group. i may take the time to add to the article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Not all anti-government folks have ties to the redemption movement. The sovereign citizen movement, for instance, is not necessarily related to it. There are a lot of movements that talk about individual sovereignty. Tisane (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

your link to sovereign citizen is a redirect to this article, thats why i put this comment here. I dont think there is a difference. and i wont put the link and content in the article if consensus is this speculation in the news article is not solid enough. I never said every anti gov group is tied to this, and your link to anti goverment is a redirct to anti statism, which is in the Anarchy family of articles. sort of polar opposites. the link to individual sovereignity is also a huge degree of difference from this article, and i question the necessity of linking this article on a cultish, criminal conspiracy movement to that article without some context, like a paragraph describing the more extreme uses of this philosophy, if there are sources that can show the connection. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sovereign citizen probably shouldn't redirect here. Tisane (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Passive Voice

Please, someone, go through the article and either delete or reword any "it [is/has been] held" passive voice sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.172.22 (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Gift Economy

I visited the FBI external site that you propose and wrote them "catch the queen first" - she is sovereign! Why do you criminalize people who want live as sovereign persons? Are we not sovereign? Is it not a real human BIRTHRIGHT ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.60.93 (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Individual sovereignty is a valid moral principle, but has little or nothing to do with the redemption movement theory of sovereignty. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 22:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Extremely Biased

This article is extremely biased and needs to tagged as not neutral. The article makes assertions of this "theory" being fraudulent when it is being practiced every day by thousands of people, peacefully and effectively. It needs to be rewritten by a dispassionate observer, not a government flunkie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.79.70.18 (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you are that dispassionate observer. I'm sure you will find many sources. 203.214.153.106 (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This article should be filed under conspiracy theory and tax fraud, not terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.185.54 (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above. this article is extremely biassed. the Principle of disowning your legal fiction is perfectly sound in that it has not yet been sucessfully challenged by the authorities. 82.21.207.51 (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

How about this--If you find me a case of someone arguing this stupid shit in front of ANY real court ANYWHERE IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE, and the Judge says "well, ya got me there: You're a noun!" and finds for the defendant, I will take my own life on a Pay-Per View special and donate the proceeds to your 'straw man' account, or whatever planet you happen to live on at the moment. In the meantime, would you do something else? I think Glenn Beck is on. And this IS my real name. I hope you show up on my porch. ThomasGuyLindenmuth (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)ThomasGuyLindenmuth.

Mr. Lindenmuth: Thank you for that, when I woke up today I couldn't have imagined I would be thrown into a fit of uncontrollable laughter by a wikipedia talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.123.180 (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey ThomasGuyLindenmuth, I can use your own logic against you by proposing that you find some proof that the Redemption Theory IS NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE legally permissible. I would also recommend that you shut your mouth unless you want to look even more ignorant and stupid than you already do. Glenn Beck is stupid shit, btw! Let the academic war begin!

If you can find an instance where this legal tactic has been successful ( I define "successful" as having lead to the exoneration and dismissal of all charges against an accused), have at rewriting it. Otherwise, it's characterization as being a legal defense scam is warranted. People are convicted and sentenced every day after trying to put forth this utter nonsense in court, and leading anyone to believe there is any grounds to these arguments is reckless, at best, and at worst, actively harmful. 75.149.102.241 (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the courts don't publish instances where their phony charges have been dismissed, thus, it is next to impossible to 'prove' that the Redemption Movement is gaining in popularity all the time, from behind the government media's eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visitor10001 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes they publish those opinions, it would be the court's opinion denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The only time something goes on in Court without being recorded on paper is in an episode of Law & Order.

This article should not use the term 'myth'. I'll admit a lot of this stuff sounded like crazy talk when I first heard it... but research changed that. 24.79.72.133 (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as no one could provide proof that this had ever been used successfully, and the recent additions were blatant POV pushing, I took it upon myself to revert recent additions. I also advise the contributors in question to take a look here before trying to start an edit war. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

As noted by others above, the idea that an individual American citizen is "sovereign" is, from a legal and political standpoint, laughable blatant nonsense. And contrary to what one poster seemed to imply, the authorities don't need to "challenge" the theory of "disowning your legal fiction". There is no such thing as "disowning your legal fiction" under American law. Neither the United States government nor any state government is going to recognize a specific, individual American as somehow being legally "sovereign" -- and neither is the government of any other country. I don't have specific court citations at my fingertips, but I believe that some individuals have indeed tried to assert this kind of nonsense in courts, and it's been laughed out of court in every single case. No exceptions. The article thus does not appear to be biased or out of line. If anything, the article is giving generous coverage of what is just another crackpot belief system. Where, as here, the crackpot belief system is notable, the existence of a Wikipedia article about it can be appropriate. Famspear (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have added citations to some of the court cases involving varitions of the "I am a sovereign and you can't do nuttin' to me" argument -- always a loser in court. Famspear (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Famspear, that's really cute, did you make that up yourself? I see you've been spreading your side of the story in here, and just a bit too much. Prepare for some additions in the next few days. Do you work for the government or something? Or do you just enjoy perpetuating the idea that people cannot win against the tyrannical court system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visitor10001 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The article does NOT have that nice unbiased read to it. It seems to automatically discount the whole idea and makes many value based assertions that. Before discounting the sovereign concept it might be a good idea to read the Popular sovereignty page. This concept is in fact the grounds for this "movement". And even if the IRS, FBI, and courts supposedly condemn these arguments does not necessarily mean the core concept is not true. The so called "Redemption movement"

"The redemption movement consists of supporters of an American conspiracy theory."

The opening line by itself is loaded and fails to give an unbiased perspective of the movement itself. In fact it immediately tries to conjure up the idea that "these people are CRRRRAZY". From what I know of the movement most people support the idea of Popular sovereignty and that governments derive their powers from the governed. Last I checked that isn't really a conspiracy theory. However, they do put forth the idea that that sovereignty has been taken away from the people. One way this can be verified by consulting a recent edition of Black's Law Dictionary. The concept is no longer there under the definition of sovereignty where it did exist in Bouvier's Law Dictionary in 1859.

"4. Strictly speaking, in our republican forms of government, the absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation; (q. v.) and the residuary sovereignty of each state, not granted to any of its public functionaries, is in the people of the state. (q. v.) 2 Dall. 471; and vide, generally, 2 Dall. 433, 455; 3 Dall. 93; 1 Story, Const. §208; 1 Toull. n. 20 Merl. Reper. h. t." http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_s.htm

The Redemption movement asserts that this sovereignty has been circumnavigated by the US GOV setting up a Fictitious entity for you at birth (most assert that it is a type of trust or combination of trusts). This way the LEGAL ENTITY of the GOV can assert its control over this LEGAL ENTITY. They usually site that this LEGAL ENTITY can be recognized with the ALL CAPS name. Since there isn't any justification for putting a proper noun in ALL CAPS accept for things that aren't living, like LEGAL ENTITIES (corps., tusts, llc etc.) and on TOMBSTONES of dead people.

ehhhhh I'm going to stop there. I'm not saying I agree with Redemption Movement theory. But I don't discount it and throw it out the window and treat it like trash just because I disagree and that seems to be how this article has been written. I do agree that people are making a lot of money selling schemes and getting a lot of people in trouble and that people should be warned. HOWEVER, there are other people out there researching for themselves trying to figure out what is going on and having success with SIMILAR theory.--yahooshua (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The article reflects how this theory is viewed by sources that meet the criteria for use in Wikipedia articles - see the policies on verifiability and reliable sources. In the court system, the redemption movement's theories have been utterly rejected. NPOV does not mean give everything equal weight, it means gives views weight in proportion to how they are represented in secondary sources. Ravensfire (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ravensfire. The legal status of "redemption theory" is that it is gibberish; it is nonsense. All the courts have rejected it. And no, no one is having, has had, or will ever have, any "success" in a court of law with any theory "similar" to "redemption theory." In Wikipedia, we deal with reliable, previously-published third party sources. As Ravensfire has pointed out, Neutral Point of View does not mean giving equal weight to all arguments. Neutral Point of View also does not mean absence of bias in the source materials. Obviously, those who use the redemption theory methods are going to "feel" that the courts are "biased" against them; the users will always lose in court. The article as currently written reflects the legal status of redemption theory -- and legal status is determined by court rulings. Famspear (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

What makes the movement look so pants-on-head retarded to outsiders is the whole emphasis on CAPITAL NAMES. Whereas cherry-picking ambiguous or misquoted regulations looks viable and requires research to debunk, emphasizing the names makes it easy to dismiss anyone as a crank. That's nothing but a holdover from old legal manuals of style, no different from MLS or AP; having argued multiple cases in the past, no court has ever cared whether any name was upper or lowercase. Foxyshadis (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

File under mass insanity?

This is a really awful article, but I think the fundamental problem here is that you can't provide a rational description of a topic that certainly seems to be quite seriously crazy. I suppose it can be dismissed as 'mostly harmless', but it seems both symptomatic of the dysfunction of the American political system, and it has potential for motivating some serious craziness above and beyond the arrests and imprisonment of the believers. For these two reasons, it seems worth coverage in Wikipedia, but it is unclear to me how such a topic can best be handled. In historical terms, there have been many similar movements, and while there is clear consensus now on their craziness, that was not the case when they were growing and in some cases becoming dangerous... (The Shakers are extinct, right?) Shanen (talk) 05:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That's because you can't explain the entire Redemption Theory in one quick little Wikipedia article. It takes some research and this thing called an attention span to really get the bigger picture. Don't look to the mainstream media for all of your reassurances either, they don't like it when we're beating them. Visitor10001 (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Two police officers were killed in West Memphis by some sovereign citizens (who were killed in a shootout with police in a Wal-Mart parking lot later that same day). The Southern Poverty Law Center is providing a video to law enforcement to aid them in dealing with these potentially dangerous people. Indiana, of all places, is having some problems with them, too. "Sovereign citizens" there are unsuccessfully attempting to avoid property taxes and also using bogus credentials trying to avoid traffic tickets. The courts are ruling against the sovereign citizens every time in every case.

Maybe in every case that you watch on the corporate channel 5 news, and the government media outlets you're so used to being brainwashed by. Look further, and you will see that this is much more than a silly argument of 'I am a sovereign, and you can't touch me' or whatever you've been told Visitor10001 (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait, so the government controls the media, but it can't control its own legal system? Right, that's logical. 155.188.247.18 (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Expand to include Sovereign Citizen theory

At some point it might be nice to rewrite and expand this to something like Redemption and Sovereign Citizen theory - as far as I can tell both these movements' beliefs are so similar that they're practically interchangeable. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 13:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory

"Under the theory, a man or woman can perform commercial assignments by means of an asset called a bill of exchange that can be spent out[clarification needed]"

Clarification? Where the fuck are you going to find that? Did you read the sentence? There IS no clarification as these people live in a different mental plane than the rest of us. Just the fact that it makes no sense to you means that you're (probably) not as insane as they are. Leave it at that. ThomasGuyLindenmuth (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)ThomasGuyLindenmuth.

Wow, I see that someone is a little upset here. Do you know what a Bill of Exchange is? Hmmm, probably not, genius. Visitor10001 (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The sentence itself is quite unclear. Is assignments the same as activity? A link to an explaination of a bill of exchange would help or a better in text description. What does spent out mean? If it just means "spent" as in what you do with cash then drop the out. I don't know the subject well enough to edit but the clarification is still needed whether the subject is bonkers or not. 94.197.7.130 (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Edits Made due to no references =

I took it upon myself to remove a few of the opening sentences due to no references cited. Please keep all edits under Wikipedia's guidelines in the future. THanks. Visitor10001 (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your massive edits and content removal due to no consensus on the article's talk page for your apparently unilateral actions and for your failure to provide any edit summaries at all. This article appears to be your sole editing interest. I'm not making allegations but perhaps a review of the WP:COI policies will be helpful to your career in Wikipedia. Please work to gain a WP:Consensus of the interested editors before undertaking such a massive removal of content and always provide edit summaries (Help:Edit summary) to explain and justify each change. I will post a similar note on your personal talk page. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I was merely removing many lines of text that cited no sources at all. So let it be known again, that I am going to remove all of the text in the "Conspiracy Theory" section that doesn't cite any sources. Does anyone object to this? If yes, perhaps you can help to add these sources in to the article. I am also adding in 2 sections to the beginning of the article, in reference to the "sovereign citizens" claim, and another in regards to the UCC-1 filing, which is grossly out of line with the actual theory of Redemption. Thanks so much. Visitor10001 (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory, or just a Theory?

I think the term Conspiracy Theory is way out of line. This is sending the wrong message. What exactly is the "Conspiracy"? Anyone? Visitor10001 (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

As with most articles of this type, it comes down to how outside groups view it and the terms they use. Ravensfire (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed additions to this article

I would like to add the following text to the article.

Its adherents sometimes call themselves "sovereign citizens", though this term could more likely be attributed, as Robert Churchill states, to the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Anti Defamation League itself, in their attempt to gain credibility.

Black's Law Dictionary defines a "Strawman" as " A 'front'; a person who is put up in name only to take part in a deal. Nominal party to a transaction; one who acts as an agent for another for the purpose of taking title to real property and executing whatever documents and instruments the principal may direct respecting the property. Person who purchases property for another to conceal identity of real purchaser." Visitor10001 (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, discussing specific changes is exactly what the talk pages are for. Wikipedia is not a well-oiled machine and thus interested editors are not waiting to spring into action with their responses within a few hours. Depending on the pace of the talk page, a week or more may be considered adequate for all interested editors to chime in. Patience is a virtue. Welcome to the Wikipedia community. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've got concerns about this reference and how it's being used. The paper mentions that civil rights organizations would refer to militias being "portrayed as largely composed of anarchist sovereign citizens". There's no mention of the redemtion theory anywhere. Nor does it say that the SPLC or ADL created the term, which is strongly implied in current version. I'm pulling it out as original research. Ravensfire (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Edited the lead to be more WP:NPOV

The WP:Lead had some major problems concerning WP:NPOV which I made a first attempt to address. It was also not fully encompassing of the entire scope of the article because it alarmingly left out mention that followers had been convicted for serious crimes. Please comment and post civil suggestions for improving it further and addressing other concerns about the lead. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I tagged the overall article as { {POV|date=March 2011} }

The entire article is vulnerable to POV debates primarily because of continuing poor to non-existent sourcing and citations. For the article to maintain it's current tone and point of view, the assertions need to be fully sourced and properly cited. There may also need to be a new section for the opposing viewpoint allowing the supporters of this theory to present their sourced and properly cited case separately. Please discuss how to improve this situation in a civil and constructive manner. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the majority of the claims in this article are based on the fact that so and so has been convicted of a crime in federal court, and since that said person is apparently tied to the Redemption Movement, the Redemption Movement itself is wrong / flawed. Additionally, the article does not explain the actual process involved in a way that the average person can understand. The Redemption process is relatively new, and some of the strategies once thought to be valid (the sight-drafts, and birth certificate accounts) have been proven bogus and are not being taught any longer. This article appears to assume that these once-thought techniques are still being taught, which is false. Visitor10001 (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Next, the so-called "Sovereign Citizens" movement is not related to the Redemption Theory itself, it is perhaps related to members of the Redemption Theory, but not THE theory. Visitor10001 (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The Redemption Theory is comprised of many elements of law, including (but not limited to): The Uniform Commercial Code, Banking Law, Admiralty Law, Contract Law, Jurisdiction, State / Federal Law, Notaries and Notary Protest, Commercial Affidavits, Court Procedure, and Common Law. EACH of these separate areas of law deserve their own section in relation to the Redemption Process itself. Only then can the reader attempt to grasp the full scope of this complicated process. Thank you. Visitor10001 (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Just one more thing and then I'll be quiet for a while :) The Redemption process is hardly about "Taxation" at all. There have been folks who have used it to successfully prove that they were not obligated to pay taxes, and of course those who unsuccessfully used it and lost in court. But, as for the Redemption Process itself, taxation is a side note. Visitor10001 (talk) 09:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Question. Who used it to successfully prove that they were not obligated to pay taxes? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

People are using what is known as 'acceptance for value', in conjunction with their perfected UCC-1 financing statement, to zero out the debt. This is not a 'I went to court and showed those guys at the IRS what was up' kind of argument. Visitor10001 (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

And "successfully" here means not just getting away with it, but going to Tax Court and the court finding that the arguements are correct and that the tax liability is not owed. If it hasn't gone to tax court, then you cannot say that it's been used successfully. And if it's gone to court, some case information will be needed to show that. Ravensfire (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "successfully" means they didn't pay the taxes, and were not punished as a result of their actions. There are more kinds of "successes", than just the tax court kind. Visitor10001 (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope - that just means they haven't been audited yet. Wesley Snipes successfully didn't pay taxes for a while - care to call his scheme a success? The only source for declaring a scheme such as used in the redemption theory successful for avoiding taxes is when the tax court confirms it. Ravensfire (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope - You are wrong! When a court 'dismisses the charges', that is a success. If I'm not mistaken, the courts don't publish instances where they dismissed the charges, and that is why it appears as if no one has successfully 'won' against the courts. Visitor10001 (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken, they do in fact publish such findings. 155.188.247.18 (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yanked the Buhtz section

It did our friend in for fraud. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 05:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey genius, that has nothing to do with the text of the article. I put that back in. Remember, just because someone has been convicted of a crime, doesn't mean that the Redemption movement is wrong. It simply means that they made an error. Nice try though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visitor10001 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Lenin and McCarthy, The new sections were added in to allow a NPOV, so please leave them in, we've heard your side of the story, now it's time to let other people have a say. You think you can handle that, tough guy? Visitor10001 (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with the tone of Visitor10001's reaction to your actions but your edits were unilateral and did not seek consensus even with a POV tag on the article and several new discussions concerning POV on the talk page. Even the section heading you chose for this "announcement" of yours come across as partisan and arrogant. I personally believe the movement is at best misguided but I more strongly believe that every editor should have a voice and a chance to present their position. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can unilaterally remove content or undo reasonable attempts at establishing NPOV without discussion. I look forward to hearing your well reasoned and articulated concerns in the relevant debates. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed part of that section because the source does NOT meet the WP:RS standard and a fairly extraordinary claim was being made. I'm adding a citation needed tag to the rest of the section. Folks, material MUST be backed by sources that meet the reliable standards criteria. Ravensfire (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I NPOVed what was left. I'm having a little trouble seeing how this is ever going to be sourced and can't see much point leaving it in. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Buhtz's conviction, sentencing, appeal, and re-sentencing has been covered in the press, for example "Medford judge gives 'redemption movement' scammer three years in prison", The Oregonian, September 8, 2009. This article describes him as a "self-styled consumer advocate" who conducted "promotional seminars in which he sold people on the fictitious theory that federal funds are put in secret Treasury accounts as each citizen is born in the U.S." If he's cited in the article, his conviction should be mentioned as well; if the quote is dropped, it would still be appropriate to discuss him in the "Promoters" section, or more minimally add a footnote along with the other convictions under "legal status". --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, then I'm just about ready to remove all of the trash under the 'government' section that doesn't have any sources, as I warned I would do 3 days ago. Thanks. Visitor10001 (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Lenin and McCarthy - Unilateral Edits & Section Blanking.

Lenin and McCarthy is section blanking without consenting the discussion group. Seems to think that he is the authority on this topic. I would beg to differ. It just goes to show that this article is severely biased towards his or her opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visitor10001 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not call editors out and try to assume good faith. A discussion has been started relating to the new section, starting a separate discussion dilutes and confuses the discussion needed because of the NPOV tag. Veriss (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry Lenin and McCarthy, I should not have used that tone. It's just that I have been trying very hard to allow both sides of this topic be heard in a civil manner, and your actions made me very upset. But I apologize, and hope this can be resolved without name calling on my part. Cheers. Visitor10001 (talk) 07:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've posted a note about this article at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard; additional editors experienced in dealing with "fringe" subjects may be helpful here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I posted a response to what is in my opinion, at least a premature listing at Redemption movement. The listing of the issue there without reasonable discussion here may also be a case of WP:OVERREACT and I suspect, quite possibly WP:BULLY. I have notified Lenin and McCarthy of the various posts in response to his actions. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Veriss, you've been here long enough to know that posting to a relevant noticeboard is a perfectly neutral and acceptable way to get more eyes on an article that's encouraged by our guidelines and policies. WP:OVERREACT in particular is an essay (an unusually bad one) that most people don't even know exists. There's nothing in either essay that remotely addresses posting to noticeboards or anything else L&McC has done.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not throw red herrings out there. We all know perfectly well that the supposed "situation" about a new editor struggling to make a point in the Wiki-Jungle did not meet the threshold for posting to that noticeboard, period, cut and dry -- it simply did not belong there at this point. Also, even if you do not like the essay WP:OVERREACT, the point remains that the complainant did in fact overreact by any common definition because a reasonable effort was not made on this talk page before crying wolf, also known as a nuisance alarm, as that noticeboard requires. I agree, I have been here long enough to know to read the notice boards' prerequisites about complaints before I get all flustered about what may very well be yet another non-incident in the Wiki-Jungle. If and only if, the situation meets the threshold for the noticeboard in question, post away, otherwise, work to establish WP:CONSENSUS per WP:POLICY. There was no attempt at the latter.

Visitor10001 is a new editor with only 57 edits. How much WP:BITE do you propose is acceptable indoctrination pain for a new editor attempting to express a minority viewpoint? I stand by my assertions of overreaction, crying wolf, nuisance alarm and possibly WP:BULLY on the part of the complainant and others joining in. I also now add WP:BITE as an additional appropriate tag for turning this learning period for a new editor into an overblown drama. Now let us stop WP:LAWYERING and turn to more productive things like fixing this broken article. Regards, Veriss (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're simply wrong about what the rules are for posting to that noticeboard. It's a noticeboard, not a complaint department. It's perfectly appropriate to post there any time you see an article that you think may have NPOV problems. It's meant to be a neutral forum alert other editors who deal frequently with NPOV issues and get more eyes on an article. Also, there's no rule that says you must or advises that you should attempt to edit the article or the talk page first. L&McC used the noticeboard exactly as it's intended to be used. I'm sorry Visitor is having a hard time here, but we don't suspend the editorial policies just because a new user is having a hard time. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Not so fast Steve, you continue to side-step the posted rules of the road. Point 4 of the rules for posting to that noticeboard explicitly state "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Give a link here to that discussion, and the final answer to your question will be posted there where other users can read the result." The requirement at point 4 was never met, not even in spirit. That complaint simply did not merit posting there and still does not rate posting there. If you decide to disagree, please do us all a favor and post the link to the relevant policy you believe supports the unneeded histrionics on that noticeboard. Veriss (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you would agree that discussion of what an editor did on a noticeboard should not occur on this page. Per WP:TPG, this page is for discussion on improvements to the article—it is not a forum to debate other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Remove extraordinary claim

There's nothing extraordinary about the consequences of a properly filed UCC 1 financing statement. The consequences being, none. I am going to place this text back in the article, as it seems the person who removed it was mistaken, and was acting in haste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visitor10001 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. There is nothing extraordinary about the consequences of a PROPERLY filed UCC-1. I think the point is that adherents of the Redemption movement claim that the legal "consequences" include things that aren't really legal consequences. Thus, although the statement is denotatively correct, it's misleading. First, the article should explain what consequences the adherents claim follow. Then the article should describe how reliable, previously published third party sources view the adherents' claims. For example, many adherents of the Redemption movement could not tell you the purpose of a UCC-1 statement -- or its legal effect, if their lives depended on it.

NO, IT IS NOT MISLEADING. You are wrong about that! Misleading would be saying something that is not true. It IS TRUE, that there are no consequences with a properly filed UCC-1 financing statement. What is so hard to understand about that?

Now, for some random thoughts about how this article should be developed: The theories behind the redemption movement are fringe theories. They are not legally valid. No reliable, previously published third party source that is authoritative on legal matters is going to endorse these theories.

Perhaps the reason is because the supposed 'theories', as explained in this article, are not really the theories of 'adherents' of the 'Redemption Movement', but a bunch of fairy tales dreamed up by the SPLC and ADL! I see that their rubbish is repeatedly being used as the basis for what the 'Redemption Movement' is all about, which, as always, is a bunch of nonsense. It must be nice for the SPLC and ADL, they get to publish any slander and nonsense they want, and it is welcomed with open arms into Wikipedia articles by people who claim to be using 'trusted 3rd party sources'. No wonder Wikipedia is a laughing stock! So go ahead and revert all of the truth that you want, because you've successfully made a monopoly out of this topic. No chance of ever being taken seriously, because everything is already built upon lies. How utterly pathetic and boring. What a waste of time and energy. Visitor10001 (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

They are not legally valid? Is that right? Perhaps they are not legally valid when used incorrectly, but that doesn't for a second prove that they are legally invalid ALL OF THE TIME. Does that make sense, or not? Visitor10001 (talk) 06:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view does not mean giving equal weight to fringe theories. The article should NOT imply that government agencies have blessed Roger Elvick's theories or Barton Buhtz's theories, and the article should NOT imply that their theories are correct. Indeed, Wikipedia cannot take a express position one way or the other that "Elvick is correct" or "Elvick is incorrect." Famspear (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It's only a fringe theory because people like YOU keep reiterating that it is. Government agencies should not be treated as if they were incapable of promoting lies and incapable of omitting the truth. They are operating under color of law. You should know this, as I see you claim to be an esquire, I sense this is why you keep reverting evidence that goes against the 'accepted legal standard' of fraud.

Visitor10001 (talk) 06:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Would someone like to tell me why my entry about the Strawman from BLD was removed (for the 3rd time without reason)? I think it directly relates to the subject, and it actually proves existence of the Strawman, which is good for the article. Is BLD promoting a fringe theory if I take their definition WORD FOR WORD? I think not. I would Visitor10001 (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're curious about that, the place to go is WP:RSN. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia is so frustrating. I have some solid evidence from the horse's mouth that the "strawman" "theory" is REAL, but there is no "appropriate time or place" in this article, according to Steven J Anderson and the like DAdvocate4u (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Definition of Strawman IN THE ARTICLE

I want the definition for strawman in the actual article, not way down in the references section were no one will see it. I have yet to hear a reason why this was moved in the first place. And I feel that there is definitely some WP:BULLY going on here, or should I say some Esquire:BULLY going on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visitor10001 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Please use calm language to describe what you think should be done to improve the article. Articles generally are written for literate people who do not need definitions inlined in the article, so what is the problem? Johnuniq (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I give up. There's no point trying to make this article neutral, it will just be reverted back to the 'govt' view as soon as I change it. Goodbye everyone, have fun with your government POV monopoly over Wikipedia, I tried my best, but the government was just too big and it's special interests just too fierce! Oh well, I don't give a rats ass about the governments ultra retarded way of thinking, just thought I could help some other people. Looks like the stranglehold is too tight. Have fun with your monopoly over Wikipedia assholes! Visitor10001 (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Prove Up the Claim

Could some editor point me to where Wikipedia has stated that the Anti-Defamation League, and the Southern Poverty Law Center are valid sources? I want to see this for myself. Again, I want to see the text or policy where Wikipedia has stated that the SPLC, and the ADL are 'good to go' as a reliable source. Nobody in their right mind would trust these 'orginizations', so I find this very very very hard to believe. Visitor10001 (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources are always considered in relation to (a) the source; (b) the topic; (c) the statement being sourced. Is there a particular statement where you doubt the suitability of the source? If so, please quote some of it, and mention why the source is unsuitable (see WP:IRS). Re (b), see WP:PARITY which indicates that gold-plated sources are not required for information regarding fringe topics (is there a gold-plated source saying this topic is not fringe?). Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I have a problem with the opening lines of this article, which, I might add, is prime real-estate for any article. The opening paragraph reads: 'The redemption movement consists of supporters of an alleged American conspiracy theory.[1] Redemption theory involves claims that when the U.S. government abandoned the gold standard in 1933, it pledged its citizens as collateral so it could borrow money. The movement asserts that common citizens can gain access to these funds using obscure procedures and regulations.' The wording of this is very deceptive. Who stated these claims? (an anonymous writer for the SPLC), and where did they get that information (no one will ever know). Can you see how this is unfair? I would be ok with these claims if they had come from an actual person, whose credentials for journalism could be traced and verified. But, as anyone will see upon further investigation, the SPLC is unwilling to show where it comes up with these accusations. THAT, is the problem. Thank you. Visitor10001 (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I personally believe that the SPLC and the ADL invented the 'Redemption Movement' themselves. Just like they did with the 'Sovereign Citizens Movement'. It wasn't a 'movement' until they said it was. The Redemption Movement is an offshoot of what used to be called 'UCC Redemption'. The Sovereign Citizens 'Movement' is a creation of the SPLC and the ADL, not of 'adherents' of the 'movement'. The SPLC and ADL fabricated this lie with their opposition to militia groups, who they assert are racist anarchists. I find it highly offensive that the SPLC and ADL are allowed the privilege of making up 'movements' and in turn being allowed to hijack an otherwise peaceful group of people theories and call them 'conspiracy theorists'. Fringe or not, this article deserves to have both sides of the story be taken seriously. Unfortunately, the editors of this article are preventing this from happening. I don't know why they would want to do this? If their claims were really sound, wouldn't they have no problem with the other side's view, after all, it would surely be proven false, and this would actually strengthen their existing claims, not weaken them. Visitor10001 (talk) 06:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Fairness is not a criterion used at Wikipedia; instead, articles rely on reliable sources with a due presentation of information. Articles very definitely should not provide equal time for "balance"—see WP:FRINGE. I cannot tell whether you object to "alleged American conspiracy theory" or "common citizens can gain access to these funds" or both or something else. If the second statement is even roughly correct (namely that someone claims that citizens can access these funds), then of course the topic is WP:FRINGE (because if it were not fringe, news reports would be full of stories showing various happy citizens who have successfully redeemed their money, or would be full of stories showing unhappy citizens pursuing legal action). When the only legal cases give negative results for the claimants, the very definition of "conspiracy theory" is shown to apply in force: it's not just the government, it's the IRS and the FBI and the legal system—they are all in it together, no doubt at the bidding of some sinister international force.

If you believe some point is missing from the article, you need to propose wording that outlines the issue, and sources to verify the statement. Please reread WP:FRINGE before attempting that. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please answer my question, sir. I asked how a NPOV on this article would take away from the quality of the article. If government POV purveyors have a problem with the other side of the story, then it must be because that side of the story threatens their established text, not because Redemption Movement purveyors are 'fringe' lunatics. To answer your question, I object to ALL of the statements made by the SPLC, and the ADL. Did you read my reasoning behind this? If so, are you tacitly admitting that I am correct? If so, can we remove these ridiculous claims? If not, are you admitting that the SPLC, and the ADL are reliable sources, who are anonymous writers with no apparent reliable sources themselves? Please respond. Visitor10001 (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You are not engaging with the issues I raised. For example, do you agree that this topic concerns whether "common citizens can gain access to these funds"? Do you agree that this is a WP:FRINGE topic?

It's not enough to object to all the statements: you need to pick just a couple of them and explain why they are not appropriate. Argument should be based on policies (for an overview, see WP:5P), and should not mention personal opinions other than whether a particular policy supports particular text.

If you claim there is an NPOV problem, you need to identify some text in the article that you believe violates WP:NPOV, and explain why. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see where you are coming from now. Wikipedia does not promote fairness. Ok, I can deal with that. Here is what I am saying. If it weren't for the unreliable accusations of the SPLC and the ADL, there would again be a question whether or not this topic was WP:FRINGE!! You see, statements such as "common citizens can gain access to these funds" assumes 1) Purveyors of the Redemption Movement have all agreed somehow that these funds exist (who said that besides the SPLC? Anyone?) and that a safe assumption would be 'all purveyors of the redemption movement are at some time preoccupied with extracting these funds. 2) Purveyors of the Redemption Movement all agree in the existence of a 'common citizen', (what is a common citizen according to the Redemption Movement? Uuuuh.. Ummmm... Uuuuu...) 3) Purveyors of the Redemption Movement agree that only a 'common citizen' can gain access to these funds ........... These are all assumptions that have been molded into the supposed history of the supposed Redemptionist, if you will. Nonsense! Perhaps an account of the Redemption Movement, as told by someone claiming to be a part of the Redemption Movement would suffice. Do you see the many problems with introducing the article with these SPLC statements? Visitor10001 (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks like nobody had anything to say about the above... Doesn't surprise me. DAdvocate4u (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Sovereign citizen movement?

See this recent article [3] and this analysis [4] - both might be useful as sources (in both articles or a merged one). Dougweller (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

SPLC and ADL - Need to be cross-verified by other reliable sources

after looking at this page [[5] Noticeboard], I see that other editors are suggesting that since the ADL and SPLC have a 50% approval rating, it should be (though it isn't :P ) required that their statements be confirmed by another trusted 3rd party publisher. Is this too much to ask? If so, could that be because there are no other reliable sources who have made claims such as the ones put forth by the SPLC and the ADL? If so, doesn't that mean they are ALL ALONE IN THEIR ASSERTIONS? If so, shouldn't they be considered self-publishing? If so, shouldn't they be removed from Wikipedia because they are making ridiculous claims? Visitor10001 (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Additions to the Barton Buhtz text..

I am going to add in some other text from the Buhtz article. This should help to show what the Redemption Movement is about ACCORDING TO AN ACTUAL REDEMPTIONIST.
BE WARNED: This text is not in harmony with Wikipedia's unspoken policy a la never give credit to anything that was stated by someone who later on broke the law, whether or not it had anything to do with the idea they were quoted with purveying .
The text will read..
Redemption movement proponent Barton Buhtz has written that when a UCC form is processed by a states UCC filing office, it becomes a public legal record/fact and that those who have filed UCC-1 Financing Statements correctly have not broken the law. Buhtz states that no court can dispute the validity of a properly filed UCC-1 financing statement. Buhtz claims that negotiable instruments, properly written and presented by a true Secured Party can lawfully, and legally be handled via local financial institutions by the Secured Party through the Secretary of the Treasury as well as ledgered by the financial institution via the Treasury Tax and Loan (TTL) account. Buhtz makes it clear that the UCC Redemption Process is not merely a get rich quick' scheme, and also warns of potential imprisonment for those who fail to follow the law in regards to this process

I propose 3 days to rebut this proposal, on the grounds that it is legally invalid, NOT ON THE GROUNDS THAT BUHTZ MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN JAILED AS A RESULT OF THIS PROCESS, because for all we know, he may have been jailed for being in contempt of court, or some other silly code or statute that the judge felt was necessary in enforcing!!!!! Yours Truly, Visitor10001 (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You know, we just don't care? What we care about are sources and proper attribution. We can report Buhtz's ideas as his ideas, no problem, so long as we can source them properly and there is no copyvio. So what's the source you are using? It also will need to make sense, by the way. Note that we are not going to discuss Buhtz's ideas as this is not a discussion forum. Oh, from memory I thought you didn't like calling it the Redemption Movement? Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So I take it that you don't care if I add the text? Right? DAdvocate4u (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If you've got verifiable, reliable sources that support the statements and conclusions, there's a better chance. Ravensfire (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Alleged

Why is "alleged American conspiracy theory" alleged in there? Is there some doubt this conspiracy theory actually exists? If so the article doesn't seem to mention that. If there is no doubt, then surely it's a conspiracy theory not an alleged one. The fact that it's complete nonsense as with many conspiracy theories doesn't change the fact it is one. Nil Einne (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope- still an alleged conspiracy theory..DAdvocate4u (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crime prevention site.

Wikipedia is not your lawyer or counsel, and because of this, the editors should refrain from the urge to "protect the readers" from themselves. Thank you.DAdvocate4u (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)