Jump to content

Sovereign citizen movement

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Orangemike (talk | contribs) at 19:15, 26 January 2022 (typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Part of the Taxation in
the United States series
Tax protest
in the United States
Anti-IRS symbol
History
Arguments
People
Related topics
This article is part of a series on
Libertarianism
in the United States
Schools
Principles
History
Economics
Intellectuals
Commentators
Politicians
Issues
Culture
Organizations
Works
See also

The sovereign citizen movement is a loose grouping of primarily American litigants, activists, commentators, tax protesters, and financial-scheme promoters, who claim to be answerable only to their particular interpretations of the common law and to not be subject to any government statutes or proceedings.[1] In the United States, they do not recognize U.S. currency and maintain that they are "free of any legal constraints".[2][3][4] They especially reject most forms of taxation as illegitimate.[5] Participants in the movement argue this concept in opposition to the idea of "federal citizens", who, they say, have unknowingly forfeited their rights by accepting some aspect of federal law.[6] The freemen on the land movement, an offspring of the sovereign citizen movement with similar doctrines, is more commonly found in Commonwealth countries, such as Australia and Canada.[7][8][9][10] However, sovereign citizens as such have appeared in various countries. The sovereign citizen movement is one of the main contemporary sources of pseudolaw.[11] Most schemes promoted by the movement involve means to avoid taxes, ignore laws, eliminate debts or extract money from the government.[12]

Many American members of the sovereign citizen movement claim that the United States government is illegitimate[13] and their foreign analogues hold similar beliefs about the government of their own countries. The sovereign citizen movement in the United States has been described as consisting of individuals who assert 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 official.[14] The movement can be traced back to white-extremist groups like Posse Comitatus and the constitutional militia movement.[15] It also includes members of certain self-declared "Moorish" sects.[16] While the movement was originally associated with white supremacism and antisemitism, it now includes varying racial ideologies as well as a variety of people, most commonly white and African American.[12]

In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) estimated that approximately 100,000 Americans were "hard-core sovereign believers", with another 200,000 "just starting out by testing sovereign techniques for resisting everything from speeding tickets to drug charges".[17]

The majority of sovereign citizens are not violent[1] and many will use pseudolegal tactics merely as attempts to ignore certain rules, to get out of debt, or to avoid such things as paying license fees and traffic tickets. However, the schemes advocated by the movement are illegal and warrant prosecution : many sovereign citizens have been found guilty of serious offenses such as tax evasion, hostile possession, creation of fraudulent documents and various degrees of traffic violations.[12][18] Also, because some occasionally get into armed confrontations with law enforcement,[1] the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) classifies "sovereign citizen extremists" as domestic terrorists.[19] Terry Nichols, one of the perpetrators of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, subscribed to a variation of sovereign citizen ideology.[18] In surveys conducted in 2014 and 2015, representatives of U.S. law enforcement ranked the risk of terrorism from the sovereign citizen movement higher than the risk from any other group, including Islamic extremists, militias, racists, and neo-Nazis.[20][21] The New South Wales Police Force in Australia has also identified sovereign citizens as a potential terrorist threat.[22]

Theories

See also: Pseudolaw, Tax protester arguments, and Tax protester conspiracy arguments
An example of a notice used by a sovereign citizen in Belfast, Northern Ireland

There is no defining text, goals or leadership to the movement.[23] There are, however, common themes, generally implying that the legitimate government and legal system have been replaced and that the current authorities are illegitimate. The state is considered not to be an actual government, but a "corporation". Taxes and licenses are likewise thought to be illegitimate. A number of leaders, referred to as "gurus", develop their own variations.[24]

American sovereign legal theories reinterpret the Constitution of the United States through selective reading of law dictionaries (notably an obsolete version of Black's Law Dictionary), state court opinions, or specific capitalization, and incorporate other details from a variety of sources including the Uniform Commercial Code, the Articles of Confederation, the Magna Carta, the Bible, and foreign treaties. They ignore the second clause of Article VI of the Constitution (the Supremacy Clause), which establishes the Constitution as the law of the land and the United States Supreme Court as the ultimate authority to interpret it.[25][26][27]

Some in the movement believe that the term "sovereign citizen" is an oxymoron and prefer to label themselves as individuals "seeking the Truth",[28] or use other denominations such as "state national",[29] "natural person",[30] "natural people", or "living people".[31]

Illegitimacy of laws and government

One common sovereign belief regarding the illegitimacy of the current American institutions is that at some point, the government set up by the Founding Fathers under a common law legal system was secretly replaced : at that point, admiralty law - the law of the sea and international commerce - substituted for common law. This leads sovereign citizens to consider that U.S. judges and lawyers are actually agents of a foreign power. There is no consensus among sovereign citizens as to when the secret change of political system took place; some believe it occurred during the Civil War, while others date it to 1933, when the United States abandoned the gold standard.[12] Sovereign citizens claim that the appearance of gold fringes on American flags that are displayed in courtrooms is evidence of admiralty law being in effect.[32]

The beliefs that the current government is a "corporation" and that people are secretly under commercial law leads sovereign citizens to consider that the law is a contract binding people to the state. According to this theory, people are tricked into said "contract" through various things including Social Security numbers, fishing licenses, or ZIP Codes, and avoiding their use means immunity from government authority.[33][34] Another common belief among sovereign citizens is that they can opt out of the purported "contract" - hence making themselves immune from the laws they do not wish to abide by - by declining to "consent" : when confronted by police officers of other officials, sovereign citizens will typically attempt to refute their authority by stating "I do not consent".[31]

The unpassed Titles of Nobility Amendment has been invoked to challenge the legitimacy of the courts as lawyers sometimes use the informal title of esquire.[35]

Writer Richard Abanes asserts that sovereign citizens fail to sufficiently examine the context of the case laws they cite, and ignore adverse evidence, such as Federalist No. 15, wherein Alexander Hamilton expressed the view that the Constitution placed everyone personally under federal authority.[36]

As they regard themselves as bound only by their own interpretation of common law, sovereign citizens have been setting up "common law courts" to handle matters regarding movement members and, frequently, to formalize their "declarations of sovereignty", a process often known as "asseveration".[32] These "courts", which are devoid of legal authority, are sometimes used to put enemies on "trial" : on occasion, public officials have been "tried" in absentia by sovereign citizens and sentenced to death for "treason".[1]

Citizenship

Writing in American Scientific Affiliation, Dennis L. Feucht reviewed American Militias: Rebellion, Racism & Religion by Richard Abanes, and described the theory of Richard McDonald, a sovereign-citizen leader, which is that there are two classes of citizens in America: the "original citizens of the states" (or "States citizens") and "U.S. citizens". McDonald asserts that U.S. citizens or "Fourteenth Amendment" citizens have civil rights, legislated to give the freed black slaves after the Civil War rights comparable to the unalienable constitutional rights of white state citizens. The benefits of U.S. citizenship are received by consent in exchange for freedom. State citizens consequently take steps to revoke and rescind their U.S. citizenship and reassert their de jure common-law state citizen status. This involves removing one's self from federal jurisdiction and relinquishing any evidence of consent to U.S. citizenship, such as a Social Security number, driver's license, car registration, use of ZIP Codes, marriage license, voter registration, and birth certificate. Also included is the refusal to pay state and federal income taxes because citizens not under U.S. jurisdiction are not required to pay them. Only residents (resident aliens) of the states, not its citizens, are income-taxable, state citizens argue. And as a state citizen landowner, one can bring forward the original land patent and file it with the county for absolute or allodial property rights. Such allodial ownership is held "without recognizing any superior to whom any duty is due on account thereof" (Black's Law Dictionary). Superiors include those who levy property taxes or who hold mortgages or liens against the property.[36]

Some sovereign citizens also claim that they can become immune to most or all laws of the United States, a process they refer to as "expatriation", which involves filing or delivering a nonlegal document claiming to renounce citizenship in a "federal corporation" and declaring only to be a citizen of the state in which they reside, to any county clerk's office that can be convinced to accept it.[37] Mecklenburg County, North Carolina courts were slowed down by a number of defendants who changed their names and declared affiliation with the "Moorish Nation", claiming that they are not culpable for acts committed under the old name and are immune to prosecution because of the affiliation.[38] Various other sovereign citizen groups claim special status and exemption from their countries' laws by purporting to belong to imaginary ethnic minorities.[18]

Dual personas

Main articles: Strawman theory and Redemption movement

One recurring idea in sovereign citizen ideology is that individuals have two personas, one of flesh and blood and the other a separate, secret, legal personality (commonly called the "strawman") that is subject to the government. Sovereign citizens may apply thumbprints to documents to distinguish "flesh and blood" people from the fictitious "strawman".[15]

The sovereign citizen movement overlaps with the redemption movement, which claims that a secret bank account is created for every citizen at birth and that the money it contains can be reclaimed through certain procedures. This belief articulates with the strawman theory, since the secret funds are supposedly associated with the strawman. Several prominent sovereign citizens have advocated redemption schemes.[18]

Other

Using arguments that rely on exacting definitions and word choice, sovereign citizens may assert a constitutional "right to travel" in a "conveyance", distinguishing it from driving an automobile to justify ignoring requirements for license plates, vehicle registration, and driver's licenses. The right to travel is claimed based on a variety of passages, some being more commonly used among groups.[25]

Other recurring sovereign citizen pseudolegal theories include that silence is deemed consent for any sort of documents and any claim or alleged statement of fact placed in a sworn document is purportedly proven true unless rebutted, and that there is no crime if there is no injured party.[11]

Some sovereign citizens are involved in other forms of conspiracy theories, including QAnon.[39] Several groups have been convincing parents whose children were removed from their custody that Child Protective Services are engaged in child trafficking, and encouraging them to kidnap their children.[30]

History

See also: Patriot movement, American militia movement, and Tax protester history in the United States

The sovereign citizen movement comes from the crossroads of the modern American tax protester phenomenon, of the radical and racist anti-government movements in the US in the 1960s and 1970s,[40] and of pseudolaw, which has existed in the United States since at least the 1950s.[11] The concept of the illegitimacy of federal income tax gradually expanded to challenge the legitimacy of the government itself.[12] The concept of a sovereign citizen originated in 1971 in the Posse Comitatus movement as a teaching of Christian Identity minister William Potter Gale. The concept has influenced the tax protester movement, the Christian Patriot movement, and the redemption movement—the last of which claims that the U.S. government uses its citizens as collateral against foreign debt.[6]

Gale identified the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as the act that converted "sovereign citizens" into "federal citizens" by their agreement to a contract to accept benefits from the federal government. Other commentators have identified other acts, including the Uniform Commercial Code, the Emergency Banking Act,[41] the Zone Improvement Plan,[42] and the alleged suppression of the Titles of Nobility Amendment.[43]

In addition to Gale's white-nationalist origins, their sovereign arguments have been adopted by the Moorish sovereigns, most of whom are African Americans. The Moorish sovereigns' beliefs may have derived, in part, from the Moorish Science Temple of America, which has condemned the sovereign citizen ideologies. The underpinnings of the theories of African American exemption vary. One belief is that the "Moors' were America's original inhabitants and are therefore entitled to self-governing. They claim to be descendants of the Moroccan "Moors" and to be thus subject to the 1786 Moroccan-American Treaty of Friendship, which they believe gives them exemption from American law. The Washitaw Nation claims rights through provisions in the Louisiana Purchase treaty granting privileges to Moors as early colonists and the non-existent "United Nations Indigenous People's Seat 215".[16] Since the 1990s, the number of African American sovereign citizens has increased substantially. Various groups have appeared, some Islamic in nature, others adhering to New Age philosophies.[18] Sovereign citizen ideas have been adopted by some groups within the Hawaiian sovereignty movement.[1]

Sovereign citizen tactics have been used by members of various other fringe political or religious groups, such as black separatists or the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.[18]

Sovereign citizen ideology garnered more support during the American farm crisis of the late 1970s and 1980s and a financial crisis in both the US and Canada during the same period.[40] The 1980s farm crisis saw the rise of anti-government protesters selling fraudulent debt-relief programs.[44] Later on, the advent of the Internet facilitated communications between people sharing the same ideas, and helped the movement branch into other countries.[40]

American pseudolaw matured around 1999-2000, and at that point was hosted by the sovereign citizen movement. During the same period, pseudolegal arguments of American origin were introduced in Canada, and gradually in other countries.[11] Since the late 2000s, the sovereign citizen movement has significantly expanded in the United States, due to the 2007-2008 financial crisis and more specifically the mortgage crisis. In Canada, its beliefs overlap with those of the freeman on the land movement, leading to confusion between the two.[24][45][46] Violent incidents such as the 2010 West Memphis police shootings, the 2014 Bundy standoff, the 2016 Malheur Refuge occupation (also involving the Bundy family) or the 2021 Wakefield standoff (involving African-American "Moorish" sovereign citizens), have attracted significant media attention in the United States. There also has been overlap between the sovereign citizen and QAnon movements.[12] A sovereign citizen group known as the Oath Enforcers attracted QAnon and Donald Trump supporters into the movement following the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol.[47] The COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to this resurgence in the United States and in other countries, as sovereign citizens have associated with the anti-mask and anti-vaccine movements.[48][49][50] An increasing trend of sovereign citizens has notably been observed in Australia and in the United Kingdom during the pandemic.[51][52][50] In the United States, some people involved in First Amendment audits have been identified as sovereign citizens by authorities.[53]

Hundreds, if not thousands, or sovereign citizens have been imprisoned as a result of their actions. Many have continued their activities behind bars, often spreading their ideologies among other inmates.[18]

Tactics

Example illustration of a sovereign citizen homemade "license plate".

By disobeying rules they consider to be illegitimate, sovereign citizens regularly find themselves in conflict with law enforcement and all forms of government institutions.[18] Sovereign citizens often use irregular documents and flawed or invented legal arguments as "proof" of their claims. They consistently violate traffic laws by refusing to use driver's licenses, valid license plates, vehicle registrations, or insurance.[23][18] One frequent argument among sovereign citizens for ignoring such requirements is that they are "traveling" and not "driving", since they are not transporting commercial goods or paying passengers.[12] Some use homemade license plates and bumper stickers, which can serve the unintended purpose of warning police officers that they are dealing with a sovereign citizen. Most interactions of sovereign citizens with law enforcement actually take place on the road : as a result, online videos of sovereign citizens confronting traffic officers are the most familiar image of the movement to the general public.[23] Many sovereign citizens engage in tax resistance and in various forms of tax protest, causing disputes with government administrations.[14][54] Sovereign citizens' conflicts with authorities have occasionally resulted in violence.[1][14][18]

Cases involving sovereign citizens can cause severe problems to law enforcement officers and court officials.[15] Sovereign citizens may challenge the laws, rules or sentences they disagree with by engaging in the practice known as paper terrorism, which involves filing complaints with legal documents that may be bogus or simply misused. Minor issues such as traffic violations or disagreements over pet-licensing fees may provoke numerous court filings. Courts will then find themselves burdened by hundreds of pages of irregular, pseudolegal documents[1][14][18][12]

Sovereign citizen documents may include unusual formalities, such as latin maxims, thumbprints, or stamps in certain places.[55] Signatures and thumbprints are likely to be in red ink or blood, since black and blue inks are believed to indicate corporations.[56]

Sovereign citizens have used various techniques of intimidation and harrassment to achieve their goals.[18] Some have advocated and practiced adverse possession of properties.[12] Notably, sovereign "Moors" have cited "reparations" as a justification for claiming other people's properties as their own, even though they also targeted the possessions of other African Americans.[57]

One method of retaliation used by sovereign citizens against public officials, or against other real or perceived enemies, is the filing of false liens. Anyone can file a notice of lien against property such as real estate, vehicles, or other assets of another under the Uniform Commercial Code and other laws. In most states of the United States, the validity of liens is not investigated or inquired into at the time of filing. Notices of liens (whether legally valid or not) are a cloud on the title of the property and may affect the property owner's credit rating, ability to obtain home equity loans, refinance the property or take other action with regards to the property. Clearing up fraudulent notices of liens may be expensive and time-consuming.[15]

When involved in court cases, sovereign citizens will generally act as their own lawyers. They often use unorthodox or downright disconcerting pseudolegal tactics,[55][58] as well as unconventional, sometimes incomprehensible legalese.[55][59]

Legal status of theories

While sovereign citizens' tactics may occasionally confuse or exhaust public officials, or delay legal proceedings,[1][30] their arguments are never upheld in court.[11] Their claims have been consistently rejected by courts in various countries, including the United States, Canada,[11][55] Australia[60] and New Zealand.[61]

In 2012, the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta's decision pertaining to a divorce case in which the husband called himself a freeman on the land compiled a decade of Canadian jurisprudence and American academic research about pseudolaw, covering various arguments and tactics commonly used by the freemen on the land, redemption and sovereign citizen movements, and refuting them in detail.[55] Meads v. Meads, written by Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke, has since been used as case law by courts in Canada and in other Commonwealth countries.[46]

Tax arguments

Individuals have tried to use "sovereign citizen" arguments in U.S. federal tax cases since the 1970s. Variations of the argument that an individual is not subject to various laws because the individual is "sovereign" have been rejected by the courts, especially in tax cases such as Johnson v. Commissioner (Phyllis Johnson's argument—that she was not subject to the federal income tax because she was an "individual sovereign citizen"—was rejected by the court),[62] Wikoff v. Commissioner (argument by Austin Wikoff—that he was not subject to the federal income tax because he was an "individual sovereign citizen"—was rejected by the court),[63] United States v. Hart (Douglas Hart's argument—in response to a lawsuit against him for filing false lien notices against Internal Revenue Service personnel, that the U.S. District Court had no jurisdiction over him because he was a "sovereign citizen"—was rejected by the District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit),[64] Young v. Internal Revenue Service (Jerry Young's argument—that the Internal Revenue Code did not pertain to him because he was a "sovereign citizen"—was rejected by the U.S. District Court),[65] and Stoecklin v. Commissioner (Kenneth Stoecklin's argument—that he was a "freeborn and sovereign" person and was therefore not subject to the income tax laws—was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; the court imposed a $3,000 penalty on Stoecklin for filing a frivolous appeal).[66] See also Missett v. Commissioner[67] and Hyslep v. Commissioner.[68]

In Risner v. Commissioner, Gregg Risner's argument—that he was not subject to federal income tax because he was a "Self-governing Free Born Sovereign Citizen"—was rejected by the court as being a "frivolous protest" of the tax laws.[69] See also Maxwell v. Snow (Lawrence Maxwell's arguments—that he was not subject to U.S. federal law because he was a "sovereign citizen of the Union State of Texas", that the United States was not a republican form of government and therefore must be abolished as unconstitutional, that the Secretary of the Treasury's jurisdiction was limited to the District of Columbia, and that he was not a citizen of the United States—were rejected by the court as being frivolous),[70] and Rowe v. Internal Revenue Service (Heather Rowe's arguments – that she was not subject to federal income tax because she was not a "party to any social compact or contract", because the IRS had no jurisdiction over her or her property, because she was "not found within the territorial limited jurisdiction of the US", because she was a "sovereign Citizen of the State of Maine", and because she was "not a U.S. Citizen as described in 26 U.S.C. 865(g)(1)(A) . . ."—were rejected by the court and were ruled to be frivolous).[71]

Other tax cases include Heitman v. Idaho State Tax Commission,[72] Cobin v. Commissioner (John Cobin's arguments—that he had the ability to opt-out of liability for federal income tax because he was white, that he was a "sovereign citizen of Oregon", that he was a "non-resident alien of the United States", and that his sovereign status made his body real property—were rejected by the court and were ruled to be "frivolous tax-protester type arguments"),[73] Glavin v. United States (John Glavin's argument—that he was not subject to an IRS summons because, as a sovereign citizen, he was not a citizen of the United States—was rejected by the court),[74] and United States v. Greenstreet (Gale Greenstreet's arguments—that he was of "Freeman Character" and "of the White Preamble Citizenship and not one of the 14th Amendment legislated enfranchised De Facto colored races", that he was a "white Preamble natural sovereign Common Law De Jure Citizen of the Republic/State of Texas", and that he was a sovereign, not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court—were ruled to be "entirely frivolous").[75] In view of such cases, the IRS has added "free-born" or "sovereign" citizenship to its list of frivolous claims that may result in a $5,000 penalty when used as the basis for an inaccurate tax return.[76]

Immunity from laws

In a criminal case in 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington noted:

Defendant [Kenneth Wayne Leaming] is apparently a member of a group loosely styled "sovereign citizens". The Court has deduced this from a number of Defendant's peculiar habits. First, like Mr. Leaming, sovereign citizens are fascinated by capitalization. They appear to believe that capitalizing names have some sort of legal effect. For example, Defendant writes that "the REGISTERED FACTS appearing in the above Paragraph evidence the uncontroverted and uncontrovertible FACTS that the SLAVERY SYSTEMS operated in the names UNITED STATES, United States, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and United States of America ... are terminated nunc pro tunc by public policy, U.C.C. 1-103 ..." (Def.'s Mandatory Jud. Not. at 2.) He appears to believe that by capitalizing "United States", he is referring to a different entity than the federal government. For better or for worse, it's the same country.

Second, sovereign citizens, like Mr. Leaming, love grandiose legalese. "COMES NOW, Kenneth Wayne, born free to the family Leaming, [date of birth redacted], constituent to The People of the State of Washington constituted 1878 and admitted to the union 22 February 1889 by Act of Congress, a Man, "State of Body" competent to be a witness and having First-Hand Knowledge of The FACTS ..." (Def.'s Mandatory Jud. Not. at 1.)

Third, Defendant evinces, like all sovereign citizens, a belief that the federal government is not real and that he does not have to follow the law. Thus, Defendant argues that as a result of the "REGISTERED FACTS", the "states of body, persons, actors, and other parties perpetuating the above-captioned transaction(s) [i.e., the Court and prosecutors] are engaged ... in acts of TREASON, and if unknowingly as victims of TREASON and FRAUD ..." (Def.'s Mandatory Jud. Not. at 2.)

The Court, therefore, feels some measure of responsibility to inform Defendant that all the fancy legal-sounding things he has read on the internet are make-believe. Defendant can call himself a "public minister" and "private attorney general", he may file "mandatory judicial notices" citing all his favorite websites, he can even address mail to the "Washington Republic". But at the end of the day, while sovereign citizens and Defendant cite things like "Universal Law Ordinances", they are subject to both state and federal laws, just like everyone else.[77]

Defendant Kenneth Wayne Leaming was found guilty of three counts of retaliating against a federal judge or law enforcement officer by a false claim, one count of concealing a person from arrest, and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm.[78] On May 24, 2013, Leaming was sentenced to eight years in federal prison.[79]

Similarly, when Andrew Schneider was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison for making a threat by mail, Schneider argued that he was a free, sovereign citizen and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal courts. That argument was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit as having "no conceivable validity in American law".[80]

Meads v. Meads refuted the theory that laws are "contracts", commenting that :

A claim that the relationship between an individual and the state is always one of contract is clearly incorrect. Aspects of that relationship may flow from mutual contract (for example a person or corporation may be hired by the government to perform a task such as road maintenance), but the state has the right to engage in unilateral action, subject to the Charter, and the allocation and delegation of government authority."[55]

Strawman theory

The strawman theory has been repeatedly dismissed by courts and the FBI considers anyone promoting it a likely fraudster. The theory of a secret fund associated with the strawman is likewise considered a scam.[81] Meads v. Meads addressed the theory, stating that :

'Double/split person' schemes have no legal effect. These schemes have no basis in law. There is only one legal identity that attaches to a person. If a person wishes to add a legal 'layer' to themselves, then a corporation is the proper approach."[55]

Other arguments and schemes

The sovereign citizen theory that courts in the United States are secretly admiralty courts and thus have no jurisdiction over people has been repeatedly dismissed as frivolous.[82]

Filing fraudulent notices of liens or documents is a crime in the United States.[15]

Sovereign citizens' argument that they do not need driver's licenses, license plates and vehicles insurances has never been upheld in court.[23] One common response from law enforcement is that, while anyone is free to "travel" by foot or by bike, operating a motor vehicle is a complex activity which requires training and licensure.[83] In 1915, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that "a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles — those moving in interstate commerce as well as others."[84]

The theories that "silence means consent" and that an unrebutted affidavit stands as truth are based on misinterpretations of legal maxims.[58]

The idea that "there is no crime if there is no injured party" fails to recognize the existence of different levels of legal violations.[83]

People and groups linked to the sovereign citizen movement have been using a constructed language created by American theorist David Wynn Miller, who asserted that this unorthodox version of the English language, variously called "Parse-Syntax-Grammar", "Correct-Language",[59] "Truth Language"[85] or "Quantum Grammar",[86] guarantees success in legal proceedings where it constitutes the only "correct" form of communication. American courts have routinely dismissed documents written in that language, calling them unintelligible.[87][88] Canadian judge J. D. Rooke commented, in his Meads v. Meads decision, that Miller's "bizarre form of “legal grammar”" is "not merely incomprehensible in Canada, but equally so in any other jurisdiction".[55]

In 2015, Anna Maria Riezinger aka Anna von Reitz, the self-proclaimed "judge" of a "common law court" in Alaska, published a letter calling for federal agents to arrest President Barack Obama, the entire Congress and the Secretary of the Treasury,[29] causing a minor internet rumour. Snopes debunked her claim by establishing that von Reitz was not a real judge, and thus had no legal standing or authority.[89]

In 2018, upon sentencing sovereign citizen "judge" Bruce Doucette to 38 years in prison, Colorado's 18th Judicial District likened his network of "common law courts" to a racketeering enterprise equivalent to organized crime.[90]

Responses from U.S. authorities

Following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, of which one perpetrator adhered to sovereign citizen ideology, Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, enhancing sentences for certain terrorism-related offenses.[91]

In October 2015, during a domestic terrorism seminar at George Washington University, National Security Division leader and Assistant Attorney General, John P. Carlin, stated that the Obama Administration had witnessed "anti-government views triggering violence throughout America". Carlin personally confirmed the 2014 START survey findings, saying that during his time at the FBI and DOJ, law enforcement officials had identified sovereign citizens as their top concern. Carlin referred to social media as a "radicalization echo chamber", through which domestic extremists deliver, re-appropriate, and reinforce messages of hate, propaganda, and calls to recruitment and violence. He charged its service providers with the responsibility of tracking and taking action against, any such abuse of its services.[92]

During the 2010s, computer repair shop owner Bruce Doucette, who styled himself as "Superior Court Judge of the Continental uNited States of America" and led a group called "The People's Grand Jury in Colorado", set up a network of "common law courts"[93][94] and traveled the country helping other sovereign citizens fight local governments.[95] He was involved in the 2016 Malheur refuge occupation.[93] Doucette and his followers attempted to intimidate sheriffs, prosecutors, judges, and county officials so they would dismiss criminal cases against other sovereign citizens.[90] When these efforts failed, Doucette and his group retaliated against the public officials by engaging in paper terrorism against them[93] with false subpoenas, arrest warrants and property liens,[96] threatening them with "arrest" by their self-appointed "Marshals".[90] Doucette and a number of his associates were arrested in 2017[97][94] and charged with racketeering, conspiracy and other felony counts.[95] In May 2018, Doucette was found guilty of participating in a racketeering enterprise, retaliation against several judges and attempting to influence a public servant. He was sentenced to 38 years in prison.[90] Colorado prosecutors commented that through this verdict, they wished to send a message nationally to sovereign citizens and remind them that threats against local government officials would not be tolerated.[95]

In 2018, Leighton Ward, an associate of David Wynn Miller who used forged documents as part of a mortgage elimination scheme, was sentenced in Arizona to 23 1/2 years in prison.[98] [99][100]

Also in 2018, Winston Shrout, an influential sovereign citizen "guru" from Oregon who had advocated tax resistance and redemption schemes for twenty years and eventually mailed to a bank one quadrillion dollars in counterfeit securities supposedly to be honored by the Treasury, was sentenced to ten years in prison. Several of Shrout's followers who had tested his ideas, including his daughter, were also sentenced.[101][54]

Similar groups outside the United States

There is some cross-over between the two groups which call themselves Freemen and Sovereign Citizens, as well as various others sharing similar beliefs.[40]

English-speaking countries

See also: Freeman on the land

With the advent of the Internet and continuing during the 21st century, people throughout the English-speaking world who share the core beliefs of these movements (which may be loosely defined as "see[ing] the state as a corporation with no authority over free citizens") have been able to connect and share their beliefs. There are now followers in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand.[40] While arguments specific to the history and laws of the United States are not used (except inadvertently[55]), many concepts have been incorporated or adopted by individuals and groups in English-speaking Commonwealth countries : Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand.[102][40] In Canada, pseudolaw of American origin introduced around 1999-2000 by Eldon Warman, who adapted sovereign citizen and redemption movement ideas to a Commonwealth context. Warman's concepts were further adapted by the Freeman of the land movement, which espouses ideas similar to those of the sovereign citizen movement, but is aimed at a more left-leaning audience. Canadian-style freeman of the land ideas were later imported into other Commonwealth countries, but American-style sovereign citizen ideology has also reached that region.[103] Sovereign Citizens from the US have gone on speaking tours to New Zealand and Australia, appealing to farmers struggling with drought, and there are Internet presences in both countries.[40]

Australia

See also: Far-right terrorism in Australia § Others

Australia, which has its own tradition of pseudolaw, imported sovereign citizen ideas in the 1990s, even before the movement's 2000s resurgence. It later imported the more Commonwealth-specific freeman on the land movement.[103] There is some cross-over between Australian freemen on the land,[104] local sovereign citizens groups, and some others.[40][104] There have been several court cases testing the core concept, none successful for the "freemen".[105] In 2011, climate denier and political activist Malcolm Roberts (later elected senator for Pauline Hanson's One Nation party), wrote a letter to then Prime Minister Julia Gillard filled with characteristic sovereign citizen ideas, although he denied that he was a "sovereign citizen".[106][107]

From the 2010s, there has been a growing number of freemen targeting Indigenous Australians, with groups with names like Tribal Sovereign Parliament of Gondwana Land, the Original Sovereign Tribal Federation (OSTF)[108] and the Original Sovereign Confederation. OSTF Founder Mark McMurtrie, an Aboriginal Australian man, has produced YouTube videos speaking about "common law", which incorporate freemen beliefs. Appealing to other Aboriginal people by partly identifying with the land rights movement, McMurtrie played on their feelings of alienation and lack of trust in the systems which had not served Indigenous people well.[109]

In 2015, the New South Wales Police Force identified "sovereign citizens" as a potential terrorist threat, estimating that there were about 300 sovereign citizens in the state at the time.[110] Sovereign citizens from the US have undertaken speaking tours to New Zealand and Australia, with some support among farmers struggling with drought and other hardships. A group called United Rights Australia (U R Australia)[111] has a Facebook presence, and there are other websites promulgating Freemen/Sovereign Citizen ideas.[40][112]

Canada

Canada had an estimated 30,000 sovereign citizens in 2015, many associating with the freemen on the land movement.[113] A ruling by Associate Chief Justice J. D. Rooke from the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta examined almost 150 cases involving pseudolaw, grouping them and characterizing them as "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments".[55][58] Legal scholar Donald J. Netolitzky makes a distinction between the Canadian sovereign citizen and freeman on the land movements, in that freemen on the land, while ideologically heterogenous, tend to be politically more left leaning than sovereign citizens.[46]

Austria and Germany

Groups with similar behaviors are found in Austria and Germany. The Reichsbürger movement (Reichsbürger, Reich citizen) in Germany originated around 1985 and had approximately 19,000 members in 2019, more concentrated in the south and east. The originator claimed to have been appointed head of the post-World War I Reich, but other leaders claim imperial authority. The movement consists of different, usually small groups. Groups have issued passports and identification cards.[114][115]

In Austria, the group Staatenbund Österreich (Austrian Commonwealth), in addition to issuing its own passports and licence plates, had a written constitution.[116] The group, established in November 2015, used language from a United States-based sovereign citizen group, "One People's Public Trust".[117] Its leader was sentenced to 14 years in jail after trying to order the Austrian Armed Forces to overthrow the government and requesting foreign assistance from Vladimir Putin; other members received lesser sentences.[118]

Italy

Since the 2010s, incidents involving sovereign citizens have been observed in Italy, with various people purporting to opt out of Italian citizenship and make themselves immune from Italian laws. Members of one group attempt to do so by declaring themselves citizens of the "Sovereign Kingdom of Gaia" ("Regno Sovrano di Gaia") while others refer to themselves as the "People of Mother Earth" ("Popolo della Terra Madre"). Italian sovereign citizens are referred locally as "Individual Sovereignists" ("Sovranisti individuali").[119]

France

A group of conspiracy theorists known as One Nation attracted media attention in France in September 2021, when they attempted to purchase a property in the rural department of Lot in order to create what purported to be a "center for the arts" and a "research laboratory". The One Nation movement holds beliefs similar to those of American sovereign citizens and denies the legitimacy of the French State.[120]

See also

Violent incidents

Groups

Individuals

Concepts

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h Laird, Lorelei (May 1, 2014), "'Sovereign citizens' plaster courts with bogus legal filings--and some turn to violence", ABA Journal, archived from the original on November 2, 2014, retrieved June 22, 2020
  2. ^ Yerak, Becky; Sachdev, Ameet (June 11, 2011). "Giordano's strange journey in bankruptcy". Chicago Tribune.
  3. ^ Also, see generally Johnson, Kevin (March 30, 2012). "Anti-government 'Sovereign Movement' on the rise in U.S." USA Today. Archived from the original on March 5, 2016. Retrieved September 14, 2017.
  4. ^ "'Sovereign Citizen' Suing State Arrested Over Traffic Stop". WRTV. April 6, 2012. Archived from the original on April 10, 2012. Retrieved April 8, 2012.
  5. ^ "Message for Students: What Is the Sovereign Citizen Movement?" Archived January 13, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. The Militia Watchdog Archives. Anti-Defamation League.
  6. ^ a b Carey, Kevin (July 2008). "Too Weird for The Wire". Washington Monthly. May/June/July 2008. Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved July 19, 2008.
  7. ^ Graveland, Bill. "Freemen-On-The-Land: Little-Known 'Sovereign Citizen' Movement Emerged From Shadows In 2013". HuffPost. The Canadian Press. Archived from the original on June 20, 2015. Retrieved June 20, 2015.
  8. ^ Wagner, Adam. "Freemen on the Land are 'parasites' peddling 'pseudolegal nonsense': Canadian judge fights back". UK Human Rights Blog. 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Archived from the original on June 20, 2015. Retrieved June 20, 2015.
  9. ^ Rush, Curtis (September 5, 2013). "Sovereign citizen movement: OPP is watching". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on June 20, 2015. Retrieved June 20, 2015.
  10. ^ "The Law Society of British Columbia: Practice Tips: The Freeman-on-the-Land movement". Archived from the original on April 17, 2015. Retrieved June 20, 2015.
  11. ^ a b c d e f Netolitzky, Donald (2018). "A Rebellion of Furious Paper: Pseudolaw As a Revolutionary Legal System". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3177484. ISSN 1556-5068.
  12. ^ a b c d e f g h i Sovereign Citizens Movement, Southern Poverty Law Center, retrieved January 6, 2022
  13. ^ "Context Matters: the Cliven Bundy Standoff". Forbes. Archived from the original on May 2, 2014. Retrieved May 2, 2014.
  14. ^ a b c d MacNab, JJ. "Context Matters: The Cliven Bundy Standoff -- Part 3". Forbes. Archived from the original on May 7, 2014. Retrieved May 6, 2014.
  15. ^ a b c d e Goode, Erica (August 23, 2013). "In Paper War, Flood of Liens Is the Weapon". The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 24, 2013. Retrieved August 24, 2013.
  16. ^ a b Moorish Sovereign Citizens, Southern Poverty Law Center, archived from the original on July 11, 2019, retrieved July 11, 2019
  17. ^ MacNab, J.J. "'Sovereign' Citizen Kane" Archived January 13, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. Intelligence Report. Issue 139. Southern Poverty Law Center. Fall 2010.
  18. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Sovereign Citizen Movement, Anti-Defamation league, retrieved January 23, 2022
  19. ^ a b "Sovereign Citizens A Growing Domestic Threat to Law Enforcement". Domestic Terrorism. Federal Bureau of Investigation. September 1, 2011. Archived from the original on December 10, 2011. Retrieved May 3, 2015.
  20. ^ Rivinius, Jessica (July 30, 2014). "Sovereign citizen movement perceived as top terrorist threat". National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. Archived from the original on August 6, 2014. Retrieved August 7, 2014.
  21. ^ David Carter; Steve Chermak; Jeremy Carter; Jack Drew. "Understanding Law Enforcement Intelligence Processes: Report to the Office of University Programs, Science and Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, uly 2014, National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (College Park, Maryland)" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on August 9, 2014. Retrieved August 7, 2014.
  22. ^ Thomas, James; McGregor, Jeanavive (November 30, 2015). "Sovereign citizens: Terrorism assessment warns of rising threat from anti-government extremists". Australia: ABC News. Archived from the original on November 30, 2015. Retrieved November 30, 2015.
  23. ^ a b c d Huffman, John Pearley (January 6, 2020). "Sovereign Citizens Take Their Anti-Government Philosophy to the Roads". Car and Driver. Archived from the original on January 6, 2020. Retrieved May 1, 2020.
  24. ^ a b The Lawless Ones: The Resurgence of the Sovereign Citizen Movement (PDF) (2nd ed.), Anti-Defamation League, 2012, retrieved June 19, 2020
  25. ^ a b Kalinowski, Caesar IV (August 1, 2019), "A Legal Response to the Sovereign Citizen Movement", Montana Law Review, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 153–210, retrieved May 1, 2020
  26. ^ "Sovereign Citizens: A Growing Domestic Threat to Law Enforcement", FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, September 1, 2011, retrieved May 5, 2020
  27. ^ "The Sovereign Citizen Movement: A Comparative Analysis with Similar Foreign Movements and Takeaways for the United States Judicial System Judicial System", Emory International Law Review Emory International Law Review, Volume 34, Issue 2, 2011, retrieved January 24, 2022
  28. ^ MacNab, J.J. (February 13, 2012). "What is a Sovereign Citizen?". Forbes. Archived from the original on July 29, 2017.
  29. ^ a b Interview with a sovereign: Judge Anna's world, Southern Poverty Law Center, December 15, 2017, retrieved January 13, 2022
  30. ^ a b c How the Sovereign Citizen Movement Convinces Desperate Parents to Ignore Laws, Vice.com, September 9, 2021, retrieved January 20, 2022
  31. ^ a b Kaz Ross (July 28, 2020), "Why do 'living people' believe they have immunity from the law?", University of Tasmania, retrieved January 20, 2022
  32. ^ a b The Sovereigns: A Dictionary of the Peculiar, Southern Poverty Law Center, August 1, 2010, retrieved January 20, 2022
  33. ^ Knight, Peter (2003). Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 334. ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9.
  34. ^ Valeri, Robin Maria; Borgeson, Kevin (May 11, 2018). Terrorism in America. Taylor & Francis. p. 145. ISBN 978-1-315-45599-0.
  35. ^ Parker, George F. (September 2014), "Competence to Stand Trial Evaluations of Sovereign Citizens: A Case Series and Primer of Odd Political and Legal Beliefs", Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 42 (3): 338–349, PMID 25187287, retrieved April 30, 2020
  36. ^ a b Feucht, Dennis (June 1997). "Essay Review of AMERICAN MILITIAS: Rebellion, Racism & Religion". Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. American Scientific Affiliation. pp. 116–118. Archived from the original on September 23, 2015. Retrieved September 4, 2014.
  37. ^ Morton, Tom (April 17, 2011). "Sovereign citizens renounce first sentence of 14th Amendment". Casper Star-Tribune. Archived from the original on January 21, 2016. Retrieved January 17, 2016.
  38. ^ 'Moorish Defense' Slowing Court Cases in Mecklenburg, WSOC-TV, July 19, 2011, retrieved April 30, 2020
  39. ^ "Florida QAnon Supporter Shoots Dead Legal Theorist Over Alleged Conspiracy Involving Her Child, Police Say". Newsweek. November 17, 2020. Retrieved January 21, 2022.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  40. ^ a b c d e f g h i Kent, Stephen A. (2015). "Freemen, Sovereign Citizens, and the Challenge to Public Order in British Heritage Countries" (PDF). International Journal of Cultic Studies. 6. Retrieved April 5, 2021.
  41. ^ Hall, Kermit; Clark, David Scott (2002). The Oxford Companion to American Law.
  42. ^ Fleishman, David (Spring 2004). "Paper Terrorism: The Impact of the 'Sovereign Citizen' on Local Government". The Public Law Journal. 27 (2).
  43. ^ Smith, William C. (November 1996). "The Law According to Barefoot Bob". ABA Journal.
  44. ^ Miller, Joshua Rhett (January 5, 2014), Sovereign citizen movement rejects gov't with tactics ranging from mischief to violence, Fox News, retrieved June 22, 2020
  45. ^ Edwin Hodge (November 26, 2019), The Sovereign Ascendant: Financial Collapse, Status Anxiety, and the Rebirth of the Sovereign Citizen Movement, Frontiers in sociology, retrieved January 20, 2022
  46. ^ a b c Netolitzky, Donald J. (2019). "After the Hammer: Six Years of Meads v. Meads". Alberta Law Review: Vol. 56, 1167 at 1185. doi:10.29173/alr2548. ISSN 1925-8356. Retrieved January 20, 2022.
  47. ^ "How the far-right group 'Oath Enforcers' plans to harass political enemies". The Guardian. April 6, 2021. Retrieved April 6, 2021.
  48. ^ Anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers and the sovereign citizen movement, New York Daily News, August 14, 2021, retrieved January 13, 2022
  49. ^ Anti-vax protests: 'Sovereign citizens' fight UK Covid vaccine rollout, BBC, January 18, 2022, retrieved January 18, 2022
  50. ^ a b Putting the UK on notice: How US legal fiction inspired aggressive action from UK anti-vaxxers, The Independent, October 31, 2021, retrieved January 24, 2022
  51. ^ The rise of 'sovereign people' and why they argue laws don't apply to them, sbs.com.au, August 13, 2021, retrieved January 13, 2022
  52. ^ COVID-19 is accelerating the rise of conspiracy and sovereign citizen movements in Australia, abc.net.au, August 20, 2021, retrieved January 13, 2022
  53. ^ "They roam public buildings, making videos. Terrorism experts say they may be dangerous". kansascity. Retrieved January 22, 2019.
  54. ^ a b Winston Shrout, One of America's Most High-Profile 'Sovereign Citizens,' is a Fugitive, Southern Poverty Law Center, April 23, 2019, retrieved January 23, 2022
  55. ^ a b c d e f g h i j J. D. Rooke (September 18, 2012). "Reasons for Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J. D. Rooke". canlii.org. Retrieved January 20, 2022.
  56. ^ Williams, Jennifer (February 9, 2016). "Why some far-right extremists think red ink can force the government to give them millions". Vox. Retrieved August 18, 2020.
  57. ^ "She Bought Her Dream Home. Then a 'Sovereign Citizen' Changed the Locks". The New York Times. Retrieved September 21, 2021.
  58. ^ a b c Netolitzky, Donald J. (2018). "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments as Magic and Ceremony". Alberta Law Review: 1045. doi:10.29173/alr2485. ISSN 1925-8356.
  59. ^ a b c Hay, Mark (July 29, 2020), "American Fringes: The Bizarro English Used by Sovereign Citizens", OZY, retrieved July 28, 2020
  60. ^ Agapis v Birmingham DCJ [2013] WASC 329, Supreme Court (WA, Australia).
  61. ^ France v Police [2014] NZHC 2193 (10 September 2014), High Court (New Zealand).
  62. ^ "Johnson v. Commissioner, 37 TCM (CCH) 189 - Tax Court 1978 - Google Scholar".
  63. ^ "Wikoff v. Commissioner, 37 TCM (CCH) 1539 - Tax Court 1978 - Google Scholar".
  64. ^ "United States v. Hart, 701 F. 2d 749 - Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit 1983 - Google Scholar".
  65. ^ "Young v. IRS, 596 F. Supp. 141 - Dist. Court, ND Indiana 1984 - Google Scholar".
  66. ^ "Stoecklin v. CIR, 865 F. 2d 1221 - Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 1989 - Google Scholar".
  67. ^ 49 T.C.M. (CCH) 602, T.C. Memo 1985-42 (1985).
  68. ^ 55 T.C.M. (CCH) 1203, T.C. Memo 1988-289 (1988).
  69. ^ "Risner v. Commissioner, 71 TCM 2210 - Tax Court 1996 - Google Scholar".
  70. ^ "Maxwell v. Snow, 409 F. 3d 354 - Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 2005 - Google Scholar".
  71. ^ "Rowe v. Internal Revenue Service, Dist. Court, D. Maine 2006 - Google Scholar".
  72. ^ Case no. CV-07-209-E-BLW, U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho (June 29, 2007).
  73. ^ "Cobin v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 2009 TC Memo 88 - Tax Court 2009 - Google Scholar".
  74. ^ "Glavin v. US, Dist. Court, WD Wisconsin 2010 - Google Scholar".
  75. ^ "US v. Greenstreet, 912 F. Supp. 224 - Dist. Court, ND Texas 1996 - Google Scholar".
  76. ^ "The Truth about Frivolous Tax Arguments" Archived March 21, 2014, at the Wayback Machine. Internal Revenue Service. January 1, 2011.
  77. ^ Order, docket entry 102, Feb. 12, 2013, United States v. Kenneth Wayne Leaming, case no. 12-cr-5039-RBL, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Freely available on RECAP: link
  78. ^ Jury verdicts, February 28, 2013, and March 1, 2013, United States v. Kenneth Wayne Leaming, case no. 12-cr-5039-RBL, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
  79. ^ News release, May 24, 2013, Office of the United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington Archived July 14, 2013, at the Wayback Machine Leaming is incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary at Marion, Illinois, and is scheduled for release on July 12, 2019. See Federal Bureau of Prisons record, Kenneth Wayne Leaming, inmate # 34928-086, U.S. Dep't of Justice.
  80. ^ "US v. Schneider, 910 F. 2d 1569 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 1990 - Google Scholar".
  81. ^ "Common Fraud Schemes". fbi.gov. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved September 22, 2010.
  82. ^ United States v. Mackovich, 209 F.3d 1227, 1233–1235, fn. 2 (9th Cir. 2000).
  83. ^ a b "5 responses to a sovereign citizen at a traffic stop". Police one. February 10, 2015. Retrieved January 24, 2022.
  84. ^ Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610 (S. C. 1915).
  85. ^ Wallace, Natasha (January 15, 2011), "'Messiah-like figure' is doing own harvesting", Sydney Morning Herald, retrieved June 21, 2020
  86. ^ Barrows, Samuel (March 26, 2021), "Sovereigns, Freemen, and Desperate Souls: Towards a Rigorous Understanding of Pseudolitigation Tactics in United States Courts", Boston Law review, retrieved December 22, 2021
  87. ^ "Paet vs Hawaii", casemine.com, March 16, 2012, retrieved December 26, 2021
  88. ^ "United States vs Pflum", casemine.com, August 21, 2013, retrieved December 26, 2021
  89. ^ FALSE: Judge Calls U.S. Marshals, FBI to Arrest the President and Congress, Snopes.com, December 11, 2015, retrieved January 20, 2022
  90. ^ a b c d Sovereign citizen Bruce Doucette sentenced to 38 years in prison, Southern Poverty Law Center, May 23, 2018, retrieved January 13, 2022
  91. ^ Carlin, John P. (October 14, 2015). "Assistant Attorney General John P. Carlin Delivers Remarks on Domestic Terrorism at an Event Co-Sponsored by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the George Washington University Center for Cyber and Homeland Security's Program on Extremism". U.S. Department of Justice News. Archived from the original on October 15, 2015. Retrieved October 15, 2015.
  92. ^ "Assistant Attorney General John Carlin on Domestic Terrorism Threat". C-SPAN. October 14, 2015. Archived from the original on March 5, 2016. Retrieved October 15, 2015.
  93. ^ a b c End of the line for bogus "Superior Court" judge, Southern Poverty Law Center, March 10, 2018, retrieved January 13, 2022
  94. ^ a b Members of Fake Courts Are Facing Real Jail Time, Southern Poverty Law Center, April 13, 2017, retrieved January 13, 2022
  95. ^ a b c Colorado Prosecutors Hope To Send A Message With 'Sovereign Citizen' Convictions, CPR News, May 24, 2018, retrieved January 13, 2022
  96. ^ Self-Declared Judge in Sovereign Movement, Bruce Doucette, Found Guilty, Westword, March 12, 2018, retrieved January 13, 2022
  97. ^ People's Grand Jury, which threatened dozens of elected officials, was spurred to action by disbelief about legitimacy of U.S. government, Denver Post, August 23, 2017, retrieved January 13, 2022
  98. ^ "The Sovereign Files: June 2017", Southern Poverty Law Center, June 14, 2017, retrieved December 22, 2021
  99. ^ Jim Seckler, "Havasu man with sovereign citizen link convicted of forgery", Mohave Valley Daily News, retrieved December 22, 2021
  100. ^ Arizona court of appeals, "STATE v. WARD", law.justia.com, retrieved December 22, 2021
  101. ^ Colin McRoberts (June 6, 2019), "Tinfoil Hats and Powdered Wigs: Thoughts on Pseudolaw", Washburn Law Journal, vol. 58, no. 3, 2019, pp. 637–668, SSRN 3400362, retrieved June 23, 2020
  102. ^ Cocks, Joan (Spring 2018), "Immune from the Law?", Lapham's Quarterly, archived from the original on March 15, 2018, retrieved January 11, 2020
  103. ^ a b Netolitzky, Donald J. (May 3, 2018). "A Pathogen Astride the Minds of Men: The Epidemiological History of Pseudolaw". Centre d’expertise et de formation sur les intégrismes religieux et la radicalisation (CEFIR). Retrieved January 24, 2022. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  104. ^ a b Stocken, Shelley (July 8, 2016). "The seriously weird beliefs of Freemen on the land". News.com.au. Australia: Nationwide News Pty Ltd. Archived from the original on May 9, 2017. Retrieved April 5, 2021.
  105. ^ "Freeman on the land (sovereign citizens)". You've entered law land. September 16, 2016. Retrieved April 5, 2021. Note: This is a blog, but it contains useful links to the cases on Austlii, and summaries written by a lawyer.
  106. ^ Vincent, Sam (November 2016), "Eyes wide open", The Monthly, archived from the original on July 23, 2019, retrieved January 8, 2020
  107. ^ Koziol, Michael (August 6, 2016), "One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts wrote bizarre 'sovereign citizen' letter to Julia Gillard", The Sydney Morning Herald, archived from the original on March 13, 2018, retrieved January 8, 2020
  108. ^ "Home page". Original Sovereign Tribal Federation. Retrieved April 7, 2021.
  109. ^ Glazov, Ramon (September 6–12, 2014). "Freemen movement targets Indigenous Australia". The Saturday Paper (28). Retrieved April 7, 2021.
  110. ^ Thomas, James; McGregor, Jeanavive (November 30, 2015). "Sovereign citizens: Terrorism assessment warns of rising threat from anti-government extremists". ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on November 30, 2015. Retrieved April 4, 2021.
  111. ^ "U R Australia". Facebook. Retrieved April 5, 2021.
  112. ^ Hutchinson, Jade (October 3, 2018). "The 'Right' Kind of Dogma". VOX - Pol. Retrieved April 5, 2021.
  113. ^ Dyck, Darryl (January 25, 2015), "'Sovereign citizen' movement worrying officials as 30,000 claim they 'freed' themselves from Canada's laws", National Post, retrieved January 11, 2020
  114. ^ Hebert, David Gauvey (May 19, 2020), "The King of Germany Will Accept Your Bank Deposits Now", BloomburgBusinessweek, retrieved June 23, 2020
  115. ^ Schuetze, Christopher F. (March 19, 2020), "Germany Shuts Down Far-Right Clubs That Deny the Modern State", The New York Times, retrieved June 23, 2020
  116. ^ Marko, Karoline (2020). "'The rulebook – our constitution': a study of the 'Austrian Commonwealth's' language use and the creation of identity through ideological in- and out-group presentation and legitimation". Critical Discourse Studies. 18 (5): 565–581. doi:10.1080/17405904.2020.1779765. ISSN 1740-5904.
  117. ^ Hartleb, Florian (2020). Lone Wolves: The New Terrorism of Right-Wing Single Actors. Springer Nature. p. 140. ISBN 978-3-030-36153-2.
  118. ^ 'President' of Austrian anti-state group jailed for 14 years, January 25, 2019, retrieved June 23, 2020 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)
  119. ^ Dentro l'assurdo mondo dei 'sovranisti individuali' italiani, Vice.com, March 6, 2017, retrieved January 20, 2022
  120. ^ Le mouvement complotiste et antisystème One Nation sur le point d'acquérir un domaine dans le Lot, September 28, 2021, retrieved January 6, 2022 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)
  121. ^ Gavin, Robert (April 22, 2014), "Prison for anti-tax activist who was once a child star", Albany Times Union, archived from the original on November 15, 2019, retrieved January 8, 2020
  122. ^ Bever, Lindsey (November 14, 2017), "Jared Fogle just tried to get out of his sex-crime sentence with a legal Hail Mary", The Washington Post, archived from the original on January 13, 2018, retrieved January 12, 2018
  123. ^ Johnson, Kevin (March 30, 2012), "Anti-government 'sovereign movement' on the rise in U.S.", USA Today, archived from the original on March 5, 2016, retrieved January 12, 2018
  124. ^ Weill, Kelly (January 4, 2018), "Republican Lawmaker: Recognize Sovereign Citizens or Pay $10,000 Fine", Daily Beast, retrieved August 4, 2020
  125. ^ "Schaeffer Cox, 'sovereign citizen'", Anchorage Daily News, September 30, 2016, retrieved January 8, 2020

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sovereign_citizen_movement&oldid=1068122242"