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.
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.
To start off, I am no supporter of this movement, but giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they are coming from a valid, if mistaken political viewpoint, this article mostly depicts them as a criminal element, intent on twisting the constitution in order to get away with as many crimes as possible. Is there another point of view to be depicted here? Kortoso (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
From a legal standpoint not really (to my knowledge). Attempts to use Sovereign citizen claims in any legal setting have consistently been found to be not just invalid, but frivolous. If an American wants to call themselves "sovereign" but still pays taxes and shows up to court when subpoenaed, then I guess it is more of a If a tree falls in a forest... sort of self-declaration. That sort of explains why cases are associated with crime. WP:FRINGE requires us to call silly bunk, silly bunk. VQuakr (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Yep. I was in court over a property dispute with one 'em once. They sent me, and all the officials involved, copies of fake reports they filed with IRS claiming we had each received million of dollars in (nonexistent) cash. The whole proceeding was utter rubbish. But that said, every fringe group attracts lots of whackos and hypocrites. There can still be principled believers, and if RSs support that among this group then we should treat it as neutrally as any other subject, with due nod to WP:Weight and WP:FringeNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Freemen on the Land treats incidents/court cases more neutrally by explaining how each one relates to the beliefs of the movement and how the courts responded. I think this would be a good model to follow instead of listing a crime and stating that it was committed by a sovereign citizen with no other context. The History section also probably has room for more balanced content. Dlthewave (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
From a legal and political standpoint, there really isn't another point of view that isn't already depicted in the article, any more than there would be in the case of tax protesters. There is absolutely no correct legal or political basis for the core beliefs of these people. The main concern is to present the material neutrally, without Wikipedia itself straining to give undue weight.
"Sovereign citizen" beliefs are the legal equivalent of what I call "Green Cheese" arguments. In an article on The Moon, we should not strain to give undue balance or equal weight to the theory that The Moon is made of green cheese -- even if there were a society of people called "The Green Cheese Society" whose members honestly believed that 99.9% of all the scientists are wrong, and that The Moon is made of green cheese.
More to the point: In a Wikipedia article specifically entitled "The Green Cheese Society," we should not strain to give undue balance or equal weight to the beliefs of such people, regardless of how fervently or honestly some of those people might hold those beliefs. A belief in a delusion is made no less a delusional belief by the fact that the belief is a "principled" one.
In Wikipedia, Neutral Point of View means presenting all significant points of view without having Wikipedia itself take sides as to who is right. Neutral Point of View does not, however, mean straining to provide "balance" to what is clearly a WP:Fringe viewpoint and, in this case, views which, if actually acted upon and followed to their "logical" conclusion, would -- with virtual certainty -- lead the actor into criminal conduct. Famspear (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
PS: An expansion of the History section to make room for "more balanced content" is possible but, if such an expansion were done properly, the result would be no change in the impression that the average reader probably obtains from the article: the correct impression that people who actually act on the core values and beliefs of the Sovereign Citizen Movement are delusional and are committing crime. There isn't another "reality" here. Green Cheese beliefs can't be dressed up to be something other than what they are. Famspear (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)