Talk:Sovereign citizen movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Most dangerous terrorist organization in the US[edit]

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

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

Neutral? No.[edit]

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

No, the ariticle is presented with a neutral point of view, as that concept is defined in Wikipedia.
There may or may not be bias in the source materials. Bias in the source materials, however, is not a violation of the Wikipedia rule on Neutral Point of View. The sources are allowed to be biased.
Regarding your comment about a "legal explanation" for why a particular argument is frivolous: It is not the responsibility of the courts, when they render decisions, to explain why a frivolous position is frivolous. Indeed, the whole point is that a frivolous position is not worthy of serious consideration.
It is not the responsibility of Wikipedia editors, in a Wikipedia article, to explain or justify a court decision that a particular argument in court is legally frivolous.
It is, however, the responsibility of every litigant in court (at least, in the United States) to know when an argument is legally frivolous, and it's everyone's legal responsibility not to use frivolous arguments. In the United States, everyone is charged with responsibility for knowing the law.
The article is presented with a Neutral Point of View. That does not mean "lack of bias." That means that Wikipedia presents the material without taking a position in the article as to who is right and who is wrong.
Neutral Point of View does not mean giving equal weight to all sides. If you get the impression from the article, as written, that people who espouse the kinds of arguments described in the article are criminals and wackos, then you are getting the right picture -- and you are getting the picture not from a violation of Wikipedia rules, but rather from the weight of the authority as described in the court cases. In a court of law, "sovereign citizen" arguments are the functional equivalent of arguing, in a convention of scientists, that The Moon is made of Green Cheese. Famspear (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's a little background:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have to agree of the extreme bias and poor case studies... it is highly one sided... there is no mention of the sources that provide proof that things like licenses are a privilege imposed upon the state and that they are all commercial in nature. There is no mention of the many cases of tax discharges that were completed and accepted by the government. There is no mention of the supreme court cases that support the fact that the 14th amendment was not ratified. There is no mention of HJR-192 which states that all labor and property of the American people will be the backing for the Private Credit that is issued by the Private Federal Reserve Bank. There is no mention of the constitution Article 1 section 10 and each state such as Oregon constitution article 11 section 1 concerning the issue that the current monetary system is not constitutional. But it is what we have. There are all associated with the Redemption concern that has substantial Legal documentation that supports the belief. There are also state senators (Georgia) that have stated that the licensing laws and the voluntary forcing of turning your automobile over to the state is in fact turning a right into a privilege... Tn supreme court case witness testimony from the DMV. Also, a law was advanced that does away with license and plates in Georgia recently... of course it went nowhere but it was a state senator that created the law. The point here is that this subject in all aspects is highly biased against the founding fathers basis of the sovereignty of the individuals as mentioned in the anti-federalist papers... The IRS that was created not by the US congress but by an act of the dept. of treasury. This is documented fact... It is not mentioned that the BAR is nothing more than an "association without standing" any more than a country club... that is documented fact as well... the selection of the so called source material is specifically biased and every write-up on the incidents page is supporting that negativity, where are the opposing sources and incidents (as there are many to select from). In fact it is very simple to find UCC and IRM references that support the sovereign point of reference and claim... for example there are many district court cases that support the claim of there being two classes of citizens... I also refer you to the "Trading with the Enemy Act" as well as the "Buck act"... If you look at title 28 sub section 3002 (10) and (15) you will find that the government code lists the United States as being a Corporation... it also states that a Us Citizen and a "Person" is in the same category as that of a corporation... If you look up these words in a Law Dictionary such as Blacks you will understand and see how the government changes the meaning of words. If you research the money issue, you will find that the Federal Reserve is no more Federal than the Federal Reserve... Of the IRS, a supreme court ruling stated that the IRS was not a government agency... Walker Todd a top ex-IRS agent testified and signed an affidavit (case#03.047448-cz Michigan)that there is no lawful constitutional money and only "Private Credit." The issues of redemption was recently tested in NC case Criminal Docket #1:08CR55-V Kathy Rayt Wahler, Edward William Wahler, and Lewis Vincent Huges... counts 1-20 25 27-32 for mail fraud: not guilty, Counts to defraud several creditors and the Federal Reserve by submitting (alleged) fictitious documents... etc... all charges were dropped 1:08CR55-RLV ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect, that is total baloney.
Just a few examples: There are no U.S. Supreme Court cases that support the silly argument that that the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not ratified. HJR-192 (which is House Joint Resolution 192) does not state that all labor and property of the American people will be the backing for the Private Credit issued by the Private Federal Reserve Bank. Nothing in Article 1 section 10 of the U.S. Constitution (or in any state constitution) makes the current monetary system unconstitutional. And no court has ever ruled that the IRS is not a government agency (I know exactly the case that you are referring to, and the court made no such ruling).
Sorry, but what you are describing is frivolous gibberish found all over the internet. None of this is new. Wikipedia has been targeted with this kind of nonsense off and on for years. This has already been covered in Wikipedia talk page discussions -- over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Here are the basic rules in Wikipedia: WP:NOR; WP:NPOV; WP:V. Famspear (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Financial Scheme Promoters[edit]

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

Some of the most visible "sovereign citizens" upon closer inspection turn out to be hucksters promoting their particular financial scheme, with kits and instructions they sell for hundreds or thousands of dollars which they pocket until jailed or otherwise stopped. This article enumerates several examples. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, one of my favorites is James Timothy Turner, who is mentioned in the article. Among other things, he was stupid enough to file a false claim in U.S. Bankruptcy Court. A smart robber would at least wear a mask to try to hide his or her identity. By openly filing a false claim in a federal court, a claim that was easily determined to be false, Turner actually handed the prosecutors the evidence needed to convict him. (He was convicted of other crimes as well.) As noted in the article, he is in federal prison now, and will be staying there for a long time. Famspear (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Validity of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)[edit]

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

In Wikipedia, sources are allowed to be "far-left leaning" or "far-right leaning," and they are allowed to be "ideologue." Wikipedia has a rule about using reliable sources. However, the mere fact that a particular source is extremely biased (for example, politically biased toward liberalism or conservatism) is a separate concept.
Wikipedia also has a rule regarding Neutral Point of View, or "NPOV." However, NPOV does not mean that the source itself has to be "neutral" or "unbiased." NPOV means that Wikipedia must present the information from various sources (some of which may be strongly biased one way and others of which may be strongly biased in the opposite way) without Wikipedia itself taking sides. In simplified terms, this means (for example) that Wikipedia itself does not say that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is "right" or that the SPLC is "wrong." Famspear (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Example: MSNBC has a reputation for being strongly liberal, and Fox News has a reputation for being strongly conservative. However, despite the strong bias or alleged bias of these sources, both are considered reliable sources for purposes of Wikipedia. Famspear (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Further, a source that is not strongly biased might be considered to be not a reliable source. The lack of bias does not necessarily make a source reliable. Famspear (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a really bad article[edit]

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

Mostly because the practitioners of this particular cult (with one group of outliers) pretend that the non-white people recognized under the post-Civil War constitutional amendments are second-class citizens, unlike the white "sovereign citizens". --Orange Mike | Talk 18:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear user at IP No, the article itself is not biased. And no, the article does not contain "constant accusations" of racism. You're over-stating your case. The people who adhere to the "sovereign citizen" ideas reported by the sources cited in the article are way, way, waaaayyy out on the fringe. As one court stated, these kinds of beliefs have no conceivable validity in American law. The article does report on what the reliable sources say. If the reliable sources say that some adherents of the so-called "sovereign citizen" philosophies have racist beliefs, the article itself does not become "biased" merely by reporting what the sources say. Neutral point of view does not mean absence of points of view.
Further, the sources themselves are allowed to be biased. That might be what you are "picking up" on. Famspear (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
By the way, in the article, there are very few references to racism. Mainly, the Richard McDonald material and the Greenstreet material might be considered to reflect evidence of some "racist" views by some adherents of the "sovereign citizen" nonsense. You completely over-stated your case. Famspear (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I went back and counted about 32 or 33 cases cited in the article -- counting Richard McDonald as a "case" (even though it's not a court case), I come up with only 3 instances where race could rationally be considered to have even been addressed -- namely in the Richard McDonald material, the Greenstreet material, and the Stoecklin material. That's three instances out of about 32 or 33 cases mentioned in the article. Famspear (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

one question[edit]

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

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

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

Sovereign Citizen Movement[edit]

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

The part about using sovereign citizen language to beckon supporters is a direct quote from the Guardian - a reliable source. This source also supports the other bits you removed. In any case, the article never claimed that he explicitly calls himself a sovereign citizen. The article did claim that he called himself a sovereign citizen of Nevada, to which claim I have added a {{citation needed}} tag, and will try now to find a source.. BethNaught (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the word sovereign from "sovereign citizen of the State of Nevada" and added a supporting ref for the amended info from the Guardian. I believe that the content you objected to is now sufficiently supported by sources? BethNaught (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed...[edit]

I deleted,

"Many members of the sovereign citizen movement believe that the U.S. Government is illegitimate.[1] JJ MacNab, who writes for Forbes about anti-government extremism, describes the sovereign citizen movement as consisting of individuals who believe that the County Sheriff is the most powerful law enforcement officer in the country, with authority superior to that of any federal agent, elected official, or local law-enforcement.[2] "

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

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

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

Dear user at IP Wikipedia does not have moderators. Wikipedia does have administrators, but everyone is pretty much subject to the same rules in terms of editing articles.
Further, the article is not written by "enemies" sovereign citizens. Let's get real.
The SPLC is a reliable source. That does not necessarily mean that the people at the SPLC are "unbiased." Further -- and this may be difficult to understand at first -- a reliable source is not required to be unbiased. Neutral Point of View does not mean eliminating bias. Neutral Point of View means presenting reliable sources -- even biased sources -- in a way so that Wikipedia itself does not take a position that this viewpoint is correct or that viewpoint is wrong. In short, sources are allowed to be biased, and the bias can be presented in Wikipedia articles -- as long as the presentation itself is done with a Neutral Point of View, taking into consideration that fringe positions are not according equal weight with other positions. That's how any encyclopedia works (or at least should work).
And no, the question is not whether the SPLC "knows better" than the "sovereign citizens" what a sovereign citizen "is."
SPLC is just one of the sources in the article. People who espouse "sovereign citizen" viewpoints are being sent to prison on a regular basis. Do you know why? Because the whole sovereign citizen philosophy is based on theories that people are not subject to various laws to which those people are indeed subject When people commit crimes by breaking laws which they mistakenly believe they are not subject to, some of those people are going to get caught and sent to jail. That, to some significant degree, is why the article looks the way it looks. The material in the article is neutrally presented. The "problem" (if you will ) is not "bias" on the part of the SPLC or Wikipedia editors; it's the "sovereign citizens" themselves who keep doing stupid things, to themselves and to others. The article simply reflects the reality of what is going on, as reported by reliable sources. Famspear (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way: You as a Wikipedia editor cannot remove material because you personally claim that the material is "false." Forbes material such the MacNab material that you wanted to delete is considered to be from a reliable source. Reliable sources may be right or wrong. But you as an editor cannot remove material just because you personally claim that the material is false or incorrect. Indeed, to allow such a thing would be to invite total chaos. As a Wikipedia editor, YOU are not a "source" for Wikipedia (neither am I or any other editor), and you are not a judge of the "truth" or "correctness" of material from a reliable source. You can add material from reliable sources, but you cannot delete material from reliable sources merely because you believe the material is incorrect. Famspear (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Another thing: Nothing in the article implies that the sovereign citizen movement started with Cliven Bundy, so I'm not sure what you were driving at. Indeed, this article existed long before anyone had ever heard of Cliven Bundy (who only came into the news this year). And part of the problem with many people who adhere to "sovereign citizen" nonsense beliefs is indeed that they do not understand that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land -- and that they don't really understand the U.S. Constitution. Misunderstandings about the Tenth Amendment are examples. And yes, some "sovereign citizens" do falsely claim that the local county sheriff somehow is a higher authority than the federal government. The Wikipedia article, when read in its entirety, gives an overview of some typical "sovereign citizen" beliefs. Famspear (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Fortunately, we don't have laws here. Phew! Crisis averted! We do have various policies that need to be followed to allow groups of people to produce a high quality encyclopedia. Edits that don't follow those policies can and will be reverted. Ravensfire (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
No, no laws here, but there are some Wikipedia guidelines, etc. Personally, I wish we had a Wikipedia super-secret double-naught spy decoder ring, cape, and secret handshake -- but I suppose it is not to be..... Famspear (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2014[edit]

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

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

How about this edit, from 2007:

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

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

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

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

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

If you want that material to be added you need to provide reliable sources that can be used as citations to support these statements. Cwobeel (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2014[edit]

In reference to the Final sentence of "Theories" section, nowhere in Federalist 15 does Hamilton express the view that the Constitution "placed everyone personally under federal authority." The entire foundation of our government is based on a federal government strictly limited by enumerated powers. “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” (Madison, Federalist 45). Hamilton does indicate, "There is nothing absurd or impracticable in the idea of a league or alliance between independent nations for certain defined purposes precisely stated in a treaty regulating all the details of time, place, circumstance, and quantity; leaving nothing to future discretion." Nowhere in those defined purposes listed in Article 1, Section 8 Powers of Congress is there any one among those powers that apply federal authority to anyone personally, much less within any one of the several States, with the possible exception of bankruptcy, counterfeiting, or taxation, and even that latter taxation was intending to be applied over the populace of a state according to the census. This reference to Hamilton claiming federal powers over the individual should be removed as it is nowhere present in Hamilton's writings, nor anywhere among the enumerated powers of the federal government. This would reduce the author's statement to unsupported opinion involving only a vague reference to case law,and it should not be present in objective reference. TJMcCann (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The referencing in that section isn't good. From a quick check, the comment is from a review of a book by Richard Abanes in the periodical Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith published by American Scientific Affiliation. The book I've got no doubts about being a reliable source. I'm not familiar with either the journal and hopefully someone can comment on it's viability as a source. The best option would probably be for someone who owns or has access to the book to see if they can find support for that statement in Abanes's book and update the reference to that. (note - this comment has been significantly edited) Ravensfire (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The journal and the underlying organization are both conservative/fundamentalist Christian in affiliation, and all works they publish must conform to that worldview. I would not consider them reliable sources for anything except what their writers believe. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This case is rather glorious[edit]

It certainly deserves a mention somewhere, but I'm not sure where.

In short, it's a rare example of someone trying a sovereign citizen defence and winning. He won despite the defence, not because of it, though. Ironically, the chap was on trial for resisting arrest, but it turned out that the arrest actually was unlawful, and that wasn't just a SovCit fantasy for once. The whole judgment is well worth a read. (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)dave

It's interesting to learn that in Canada there remains a right to resist an invalid arrest. —Tamfang (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Queen and diplomats may be sovereign[edit]

How is that possible that diplomats/aristocrats can enjoy the diplomatic immunity while ordinary people are criminalized and can not enjoy the same privileges? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Because if the state gave that courtesy to more than a few it would no longer be a state. —Tamfang (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Diplomatic immunity doesn't imply an unlimited right to do whatever you want with no consequences. Diplomats can be expelled from the country if their crimes are serious enough, and it embarrasses their entire country. They can also be subjected to trial in their home country for their crimes. Diplomatic immunity merely means that such incidents are to be dealt with diplomatically, rather than with the unilateral application of legal force by the host country on the diplomat. It's a special privilege we grant to representatives of sovereign states merely because sovereign states are a big deal, they have armies, and maintaining communication with them and not offending them by application of our legal norms on their representatives is more important to society than the occasional breach of law by this handful of people. If diplomatic immunity were granted to a "sovereign citizen", where could we expel them to should their continued presence in our country become noxious to us? Their own property (isn't that part of our country)? Who would be the responsible party that could try them for their crimes? Themselves? Clearly this is absurd. Moreover, as they don't have armies, it's not even in our interest. (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Legal theories[edit]

The legal theories section is way too long for an encyclopedia article and borders on original research. It is arguing the facts, instead of summarizing them. The whole section should be reduced to "Courts have repeatedly found these arguments to be frivolous." with a ton of citations. (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree. First of all, the essence of the subject -- the sovereign citizen movement -- is the subject of legal theories. And no, the section isn't "arguing" anything, much less about "facts." Instead, the section summarizes actual court cases involving the subject of the article: the sovereign citizen movement.
Second, the section is not prohibited original research as that term is used in Wikipedia, nor does it "border" on prohibited original research. One of the dangers of engaging in prohibited original research involves taking a statement from Source A and a statement from Source B and drawing Conclusion C -- where Conclusion C was not a conclusion drawn by Source A and Source B. We don't have that problem in this article. We do not see that in the section on legal theories or anywhere else in the article. Wikipedia is simply reporting on the sovereign citizen theories, and reporting on how the courts have ruled on those theories. Wikipedia itself is not taking a stand as to who is right and who is wrong, and Wikipedia itself is not falsely using Source A and Source B to arrive at Conclusion C.
Many, many articles in Wikipedia deal with the subject of law and legal theories. This article deals appropriately with a fringe theory about the law. Famspear (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
PS: Dear user at IP; A point of clarification here: What you might have picked up on from the text of the article are some references to the arguments made by the litigants in the cases cited in the section on legal theories. Those aren't arguments made by Wikipedia itself. By definition, virtually all adversarial court proceedings in the United States involve arguments. But the arguments were made by the parties to the case. The references in the Wikipedia article are to the litigants' arguments -- and to what the courts decided in those cases. And for the most part, the arguments mentioned in the citations to the cases in this article are not arguments about what we call "facts". They're arguments about legal issues -- about what the law is, not about facts. Famspear (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Another Wikipedia article on fringe legal theories is Freemen on the land. Same scenario. Look at the citations to court cases in that article. Particularly in many Wikipedia articles on subjects involving the legal systems of nations where the systems came from English common law (such as England, the United States, and Canada), summaries of court cases are inevitable, because common law systems rely so heavily on the doctrines of judicial precedent and stare decisis. Famspear (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Court decisions are primary, not secondary sources. Citations should be made to articles and treatises that interpret them, not to decisions which may have been over turned or anomalous. Understanding the difference between holdings and obiter dicta, especially in panel decisions, is not a laymen's task. (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The actual verbatim texts of court decisions are primary authority in legal analysis. However, we're not writing legal briefs here, and we're not in court. For purposes of Wikipedia, some editors had contended that court decisions are in some cases secondary sources.
You are correct to the extent that understanding the difference between holdings and obiter dicta indeed is not a layman's task. However, contrary to what many Wikipedia editors seem to feel, the use of primary sources is not prohibited in Wikipedia.
None of the decisions cited in the article has been overturned. Indeed, there is no known instance of a sovereign citizen argument ever having been ruled correct in an American court of law. Ever. Not even once.
If we were to change the rules in Wikipedia and we were to start taking out citations to (and quotes from) actual court decisions, we would be making a major change in Wikipedia. I doubt that we are going to do that. Famspear (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

U.S. government responses[edit]

I'm new, so please bear with me. I added the above section. It was deleted twice (by a bot and a user). I missed the opportunity to write a comment as to why I undid the last deletion of the section; and I don't know how to change that, or message VQuakr, etc. Sorry! I believe much the edits I made are relevant to the topic, as the sources I used referenced sovereign citizens. I hope you see this, VQuakr. Thanks for all you do. :) Sarah.stark (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sarah.stark: you can click on. The word "talk" next to VQuakr's name on the article history, or wherever you clicked to undo the change. That will allow you to post a message on his/her personal talk page just as you did here. Or you can use the template I'm using to @VQuakr: (look at this section in edit mode to see the format). However, since you've already reverted twice, you might just as well present your case for inclusion in a new section here, where more editors are likely to see it and participate. 2600:1006:B119:F71A:59F:BBA0:64EA:CE63 (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Sarah.stark (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I have created a new section to this article: U.S. government responses. It has been deleted twice. I have undone the deletes, as two of the sources I used, Eric Holder and John P. Carlin, specifically highlighted anti-government animus and/or the sovereign citizen movement in the works I cited.

Sarah.stark (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

But the subject of this article isn't domestic terrorism; it is a tax/litigation scheme. The two are also related, but the content you are proposing adding doesn't discuss the topic of this article at all. VQuakr (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)