Jump to content

Talk:Sovereign citizen movement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 174.211.98.175 (talk) at 05:45, 23 June 2023 (→‎Not a nice definition or explanation: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

pursuant to the flag

One American sovereign citizen "guru" and "quantum grammar" advocate, Russell Jay Gould, claims that having filed a document pursuant to the U.S. flag at a moment when the United States was supposedly bankrupt makes him the legitimate ruler of the country.

What the heck does "pursuant" mean here? Did Gould get secret coded instructions from the flag itself? —Tamfang (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SovCits believe that US flags with gold fringe are naval flags, indicating that the court they're displayed in is using maritime law, rather than common law. It's an inane argument, but it's what they actually believe.
Gould thinks he can identify the exact time the US government went "bankrupt" by when this supposed change in flags occurred. Their entire belief system hinges on this fact, that the government has been operating illegally for over a century and using citizens as collateral to pay off debts. They seem to think they can file just the right legal paperwork (with an government they simultaneously believe has no legal authority, mind you) so that they can get access to this money and absolve themselves of following the law. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still think there must be a clearer word than pursuant, unless of course Gould used that word. —Tamfang (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Pursuant" was used by the source. I've edited the text a little bit, replaced "pursuant" with "relating" and made it clearer that the document Gould claims to have filed relates to Title 4 of the United States Code. The source does not specify what Gould's document was about but he claims that it makes him the legitimate owner of the US flag, and therefore the ruler of the country (it's very confusing, to be honest). Psychloppos (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. —Tamfang (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Success in court?

This has gone on long enough. Consensus is that the article's wording is correct, sovcit arguments have never been successful in court. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

'Sovereign citizen arguments have no basis in law and have never been successful in court'

Cliven Bundy managed to succeed. Certainly not in the manner of a legal precedent, but he won the case. Jokem (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No sovereign citizen arguments led to the dismissal of the charges against the Bundys. Rather, the judge declared a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct. Thus, the statement is correct. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From what I read, both attempts at a trial had a jury favorable to Mr Bundy, even though the prosecution cheated. So your statement above is what is called a technicality. Cheers. Jokem (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a technicality to say that no sovereign citizen argument worked in either case. That's just a fact. Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bundy won his court case. I call that being successful. You can argue it is or is not a technicality, but he won. Jokem (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't win the case because of his arguments is the point—blindlynx 00:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May be true, but he was still successful in court. Jokem (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right -- I think we're talking past one another here. Have so-called sovereign citizens at times succeeded in court? They have. Have legal arguments from the sovereign citizen world succeeded in court? They have not. That's the distinction we mean. Dumuzid (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The literal interpretation of the phrase...
'Sovereign citizen arguments have no basis in law and have never been successful in court'
Is incorrect. Jokem (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. That phrase is quite right. Sovereign Citizens have won in court, but not because of SovCit arguments. There is a difference between correlation and causation. But hey, if you can establish a consensus for a different version, be my guest. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. The phrase is quite wrong. You want to establish a consensus for the actual meaning of words, go ahead. Cheers. Jokem (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase is absolutely correct. Bundy's arguments were not successful in court, because the case was thrown out due to prosecutorial misconduct. The case was not won based on SovCit arguments, but ended by the discovery of improper conduct of the prosecution. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 09:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is specifically talking about their arguments not about the individuals—blindlynx 14:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jokem, what are you talking about? Did the Sovereign citizen win because of his arguments that he has the right to drive without a license? Vmelkon (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, he did not. Some SovCits like to pretend otherwise, though. (I'm not accusing anybody here of that.) --Orange Mike | Talk 22:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean that the jury, which never deliberated, was pro-Bundy? How does anyone know? —Tamfang (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way to be sure without a fair trial, but the first mistrial was 10-2 favoring Bundy and the second was 11-1 in his favor. That sounds like pro-Bundy to me, with the Prosecution cheating on top of that. Jokem (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per the Cliven Bundy page, his attempts to challenge the federal court's jurisdiction were promptly dismissed, so his sovereign citizen arguments were not successful at all. He won because the prosecution botched the case. So one may say that Bundy won despite his sovereign citizen arguments, not because of them. Psychloppos (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a POV argument. Jokem (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't the foggiest notion what you mean by that, but it's a bit beside the point. When you have a consensus (or, indeed, one other person who agrees with you), then we can discuss. Until then this is just a tendentious refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? No it isn't. VQuakr (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of examples

Even though this was a bit drastic, I will readily admit - being the main culprit - that this list of "judicial responses" was much too long and had become unreadable. However, some of these examples are pretty useful and IMHO it would be a pity to do dispense entirely with them. The example about Wesley Snipes is pretty notable, and the cases of Elvick, Shrout and Tucci-Jarraf are about prominent gurus : it would be pretty useful to show how even those people (purported sovereign citizen "experts") failed in court. The case of Darrell Brooks would also be useful to mention, as it has been featured prominently in the media. I'd suggest that we put back some of these examples, in shortened form, not in a separate section which would be as unreadable as the previous one, but in the various paragraphs of "Legal status of theories". Any thoughts ? Psychloppos (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As proposed, I put back some of these examples, in a somewhat shortened form. I hope that they're more readable and useful now that they're contextualized. I could shorten the text again if necessary. Psychloppos (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will have a look, but as a general proposition, I think a few examples are called for. Thanks again for putting in so much work. Dumuzid (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, having looked, I think the examples are fine--I do think the "other arguments" needs contextualization, rather than a bullet-style list of bad ideas. Many (if not all!) are addressed elsewhere in the article, and I am not quite sure if it makes sense to introduce them and immediately have a rebuttal, or to take some other form. But that would be my two cents! Dumuzid (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a distinct subsection for the sovcit "common law courts", as this part represented a big chunk of text. Psychloppos (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2023

This article is completely biased regarding gold fringe and whether united states is a federal corporation.These are both true and I suggest the reader fact check 2001:5B0:2545:1E69:955C:D931:2752:8EB1 (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - this article is indeed biased, in favor of reliable sources and against nonsense. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a nice definition or explanation

To be honest I’d not care what a sovereign citizen is but to describe them the way you did in this article or explanation is completely rude and disingenuous 174.211.98.175 (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sovereign_citizen_movement&oldid=1161510661"